2014 (3) TMI 428 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Chennai: Carbon credits as capital receipts, not taxable as revenue. Partial appeal allowed.

M/s. Ambika Cotton Mills Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(3), Coimbatore.

M/s. Ambika Cotton Mills Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(3), Coimbatore. - [2013] 27 ITR (Trib) 44 (ITAT [Chen]) Issues:1. Nature of receipt - capital or revenue2. Addition of Rs. 89,6903. Addition of Rs. 15,51,913---Nature of receipt - capital or revenue:The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax confirming additions made in the assessment order for various amounts claimed as capital receipt re Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by realizing carbon credit, delayed payment of TDS, interest on TDS, and TNEB interest for security deposit. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions and relied on a case law for support. The Revenue opposed the appeal and supported the CIT(A)'s order. The Assessing Officer considered the receipts as revenue in nature, rejecting the assessee's explanations. However, the ITAT Chennai referred to a judgment by ITAT Hyderabad, which held that carbon credits are a capital receipt and not taxable as revenue. Consequently, the addition related to carbon credits was deleted.---Addition of Rs. 89,690:The addition of Rs. 89,690 was contested by the assessee, but the authorities upheld it due to lack of supporting evidence from the party at whose instance the amount was paid. The amount was written off as sundry expenses, leading to the conclusion that the addition should not be deleted. Therefore, the ITAT Chennai decided not to delete this addition.---Addition of Rs. 15,51,913:The dispute regarding the addition of Rs. 15,51,913 was centered on the assessment year for taxation. The assessee argued that it should be taxed in the subsequent assessment year, while the Revenue insisted on taxing it in the impugned assessment year due to the mercantile system of accounting. The Assessing Officer received intimation of the credit in the relevant previous year for the subsequent assessment year. The assessee included the amount as income for the next assessment year. The ITAT Chennai observed that if the Assessing Officer had already treated the amount as income in the subsequent assessment year, the addition in question would be deleted in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.---