2013 (9) TMI 633 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on various grounds, dismisses revenue's appeals

The Tribunal allowed several grounds in favor of the assessee, including the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds, depreciation on plant and ... Repairs and renovation work in the leased property to be treated as revenue expenditure of capital expenditure – Held that:- Repairs conducted on tenanted/leased property and is purely in the nature of business expenditure - Assessee had undertaken repairs and renovation work in the leased property, meant to be for the purpose to showcase the products under the “Brand TATA” - Time has come that there has to be a proper display and single roof display of one’s own products shall boost the business, if the business is multi product – Relying upon the decision in the case of Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. v/s CIT reported in [1971 (8) TMI 13 - SUPREME Court], it is held that the expenditure of renovation is revenue in nature – Decided in favor of Assessee. Disallowance on account of system software development expenses – Held that:- Relying upon the judgment Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs Raychem RPG Ltd., Mumbai [2011 (7) TMI 953 - Bombay High Court], it has been held that expenses are revenue in nature and hence deleted the addition made by revenue authorities. Forfeiture of deposit to be treated as revenue loss, allowable for deduction or capital loss not allowed in the profit & loss account - AEPC had forfeited its Earnest Money Deposit – Held that:- Reliance has been placed on the order of the co-ordinate Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of Pyoginam vs. ACIT, reported in [2010 (2) TMI 819 - ITAT, Delhi], wherein it has been held that amount on account of non-fulfillment of quota cannot be treated as penalty - Assessee got quota allotted on the basis of past performance of export business and not on the basis of the earnest money deposited. The earnest money was paid on percentage basis of quota allotted. Therefore, the payment of earnest money was in the course of business activities and hence, cannot be treated as capital in nature. - Decided in favor of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of interest on borrowed funds.2. Deduction under section 80HHC.3. Depreciation on plant and machinery.4. Depreciation on helicopters.5. Disallowance of community welfare expenses.6. Disallowance of payments to Tata Employees Consumers Co-op Soc. Ltd.7. Disallowance of Y2K expenses.8. Treatment of interest received under section 244A.9. Disallowance of prior period expenses.10. Levy of interest under section 234B and 234D.11. Carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Interest on Borrowed Funds:The assessee's appeal against the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds was allowed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sufficient own funds exceeding the total investments, and the revenue authorities failed to establish a clear nexus between the borrowed funds and the investments. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Powers Ltd. and other relevant case laws, concluding that the interest was deductible under section 36(1)(iii).2. Deduction under Section 80HHC:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order sustaining the disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 80HHC amounting to Rs. 17,20,46,510/-, following the insertion of the 5th proviso to section 80HHC(3) and previous decisions in the assessee's own cases. The Tribunal also addressed various grounds concerning the computation of deduction under section 80HHC, including the exclusion of unrealized export proceeds, direct costs, and net amounts of receipts, directing the AO to recompute the profits of business in accordance with the law as held by the Supreme Court in ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. vs. CIT.3. Depreciation on Plant and Machinery:The Tribunal allowed the depreciation on plant and machinery used in the textile and garments business, following the decisions in the assessee's own cases and relevant High Court judgments.4. Depreciation on Helicopters:The Tribunal allowed the depreciation on two helicopters owned by the assessee, following the decisions in the assessee's own cases and relevant High Court judgments, noting that the helicopters were used for business purposes.5. Disallowance of Community Welfare Expenses:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal against the deletion of disallowance of community welfare expenses, following consistent decisions in the assessee's favor in previous years.6. Disallowance of Payments to Tata Employees Consumers Co-op Soc. Ltd.:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal against the deletion of disallowance of payments made to Tata Employees Consumers Co-op Soc. Ltd., following consistent decisions in the assessee's favor in previous years.7. Disallowance of Y2K Expenses:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the claim of Y2K expenses, noting that the required audit report was filed during the assessment proceedings, and the disallowance could not be sustained merely because it was not filed with the return.8. Treatment of Interest Received under Section 244A:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground that interest received under section 244A should be treated as business income and not as income from other sources, following the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.B. Jodhamal Kuthiala vs. CIT.9. Disallowance of Prior Period Expenses:The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground concerning the disallowance of prior period expenses, noting that the expenses pertained to earlier years and there was no evidence to show that they fell in the provisions or accrual in the preceding year.10. Levy of Interest under Section 234B and 234D:The Tribunal directed the AO not to charge interest under section 234B in respect of additions made due to retrospective amendments, following the decision in the assessee's own cases. The Tribunal also directed the AO to cancel the levy of interest under section 234D, following the decision of the Special Bench in ITO vs. Ekta Promoters (P) Ltd.11. Carry Forward of Unabsorbed Depreciation:The Tribunal allowed the ground concerning the omission to allow the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, directing the AO to give consequential effect in line with the findings in the current appeals.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed several grounds in favor of the assessee, particularly concerning the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds, depreciation on plant and machinery, and helicopters, and treatment of interest received under section 244A. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recompute deductions under section 80HHC and address other computational issues in accordance with the law. The revenue's appeals on community welfare expenses, payments to Tata Employees Consumers Co-op Soc. Ltd., and other disallowances were dismissed. The levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D was also addressed favorably for the assessee.