Revenue's Appeal Partly Allowed, Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decisions, Reverses on Interest Income Treatment

Mcleod Russel India Ltd. Versus Department of Income Tax

Mcleod Russel India Ltd. Versus Department of Income Tax - [2013] 24 ITR 262 Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of cess on green leaf.
2. Claim of depreciation by the assessee.
3. Treatment of software development expenses as revenue expenditure.
4. Deduction of provision for diminution in the value of investment and provision for contingency written back under section 115JB.
5. Treatment of interest receipt as part of assessee's income of growing and manufacturing of tea under section 115JB.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Cess on Green Leaf:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,61,32,000 on account of cess on green leaf, arguing it relates to 100% agricultural operation. The Tribunal noted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of AFT Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (270 ITR 167), which is binding. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed this ground, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

2. Claim of Depreciation by the Assessee:
The AO disallowed part of the depreciation claimed by the assessee, referencing an amendment to section 43(6) introduced by the Finance Act 2009. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating the amendment was not clarificatory and applied only from AY 2010-11. The Tribunal found the case covered by the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Doom Dooma India Ltd. (310 ITR 392) and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing this ground of the Revenue.

3. Treatment of Software Development Expenses as Revenue Expenditure:
The AO treated Rs. 20,00,000 incurred on software development as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) reversed this, citing that the expenditure improved operational efficiency without acquiring a capital asset or enduring benefit. The Tribunal agreed, referencing the Special Bench decision in Amway India Enterprises vs. DCIT (111 ITD 112), which was upheld by the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, affirming the CIT(A)'s treatment of the expenses as revenue in nature.

4. Deduction of Provision for Diminution in the Value of Investment and Provision for Contingency Written Back under Section 115JB:
The AO rejected the deduction of Rs. 3,82,45,000 and Rs. 1,35,78,000 for provisions written back. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, noting these provisions were not allowed as deductions in earlier years when created. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it consistent with Explanation 1(i) of section 115JB, and dismissed this ground.

5. Treatment of Interest Receipt as Part of Assessee's Income of Growing and Manufacturing of Tea under Section 115JB:
The AO included the entire interest receipt of Rs. 1,59,90,313 as part of book profit under section 115JB, not considering it agricultural income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to consider only 40% of such interest as taxable. The Tribunal, however, found that interest earned on surplus funds does not directly derive from the sale of tea grown and manufactured, referencing Supreme Court decisions in Liberty India vs. CIT (317 ITR 218) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (262 ITR 278). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's treatment, allowing this ground of the Revenue.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was partly allowed, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on grounds 1 to 4 and reversing the CIT(A)'s decision on ground 5.