TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decisions on expenses & disallows interest on cash balance. Depreciation & deduction issues remanded.</h1> <h3>DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/s INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD</h3> DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/s INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of foreign travelling expenses.2. Disallowance of guest house expenses.3. Disallowance on account of loss in trading.4. Addition on account of excess consumption of Heptene.5. Addition on account of excess consumption of catalysts.6. Disallowance of depreciation on assets leased back to Rajasthan State Electricity Board.7. Disallowance of expenditure incurred on the transaction of lease back assets.8. Deduction u/s 80HHC.9. Low yield and GP addition.10. Disallowance u/s 40A(2).11. Disallowance of interest on cash balance.12. Disallowance of interest on unconfirmed advances.13. Deduction u/s 80IA.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Foreign Travelling Expenses:The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 10,11,025/- due to lack of details. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the details were furnished and similar disallowances were deleted in earlier years (AY 1994-95 and 1995-96). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision as the Revenue could not provide contrary evidence.2. Disallowance of Guest House Expenses:The AO disallowed Rs. 1,14,319/- under Section 37(4). The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on Gujarat High Court decisions. However, the Tribunal reversed this, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, which mandated disallowance of such expenses.3. Disallowance on Account of Loss in Trading:The AO disallowed Rs. 2,13,322/- due to lack of proof of sales consideration and market rate details. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting no evidence of sale below market price and no applicability of Section 40A(2)(a). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.4. Addition on Account of Excess Consumption of Heptene:The AO added Rs. 96,43,855/- for unexplained excess consumption. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting proper maintenance of records and no justification for rejecting books. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision as the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence.5. Addition on Account of Excess Consumption of Catalysts:The AO added Rs. 86,87,381/- for unexplained excess consumption. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing similar reasons as for Heptene. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting no defects in records and better gross profit rates.6. Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Leased Back to Rajasthan State Electricity Board:The AO disallowed Rs. 6,30,25,680/-, considering the transaction a tax avoidance device. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, relying on the ITAT's decision in Unimed Technologies Ltd. The Tribunal set aside the issue for re-examination in light of the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Gas Ltd.7. Disallowance of Expenditure Incurred on the Transaction of Lease Back Assets:Linked to the 6th issue, the Tribunal set aside the issue for re-examination by the AO.8. Deduction u/s 80HHC:The AO included excise duty and sales tax in turnover and excluded lease rent, interest, and miscellaneous income from business income. The CIT(A) directed exclusion of excise duty and sales tax and inclusion of interest and lease income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on excise duty and sales tax, but directed re-examination of interest and lease income in light of Supreme Court decisions.9. Low Yield and GP Addition:The AO added Rs. 1,55,33,637/- for unaccounted production. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting proper maintenance of records and no evidence of unaccounted sales. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.10. Disallowance u/s 40A(2):The AO disallowed Rs. 25,20,000/- as excessive remuneration to a director. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting approval by the Company Law Board and reliance on Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.11. Disallowance of Interest on Cash Balance:The AO disallowed Rs. 11,96,100/- for maintaining huge cash balance. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting no evidence of non-business use and availability of interest-free funds. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.12. Disallowance of Interest on Unconfirmed Advances:The AO disallowed Rs. 25.20 lacs due to lack of evidence of business purpose. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the nexus between borrowed funds and advances. The Tribunal upheld the AO's disallowance, noting no subsequent construction of tanks.13. Deduction u/s 80IA:The AO disallowed the claim as the unit started production before 1-4-91. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting no creation of a new unit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld several decisions of the CIT(A) while setting aside a few issues for re-examination. The Revenue's appeals were partly allowed, and the Assessee's cross-objections were dismissed.
TaxTMI 