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)'s Decisions in Favor of Assessee on Various Tax Issues</h1> <h3>ACIT, Circle II, Faridabad Versus M/s. N.H.P.C. Limited</h3> ACIT, Circle II, Faridabad Versus M/s. N.H.P.C. Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Claim of provision for gratuity and other benefits as contingent liabilities under section 115JB.2. Depreciation on land amortized while calculating book profits under section 115JB.3. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Claim of Provision for Gratuity and Other Benefits:The primary issue was whether provisions for gratuity, leave encashment, EPF matching contribution on leave encashment, retired employee health scheme, leave travel concession, and baggage allowance on superannuation are contingent liabilities and thus not allowable while computing book profit under section 115JB. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 82,57,10,238 to the book profit, considering these provisions as contingent liabilities. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted this addition, referencing past decisions in favor of the assessee and judicial rulings that considered such provisions as ascertained liabilities when based on actuarial valuation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the issue had been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in previous years.2. Depreciation on Land Amortized:The AO disallowed Rs. 1,80,79,857 claimed as depreciation on unclassified and leasehold land, arguing that depreciation on land is not prescribed under the Companies Act or the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating that amortization was done per accounting standards and previous appellate decisions. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the issue was covered by the Tribunal's decisions in earlier assessment years in favor of the assessee.3. Disallowance under Section 14A:The AO applied Rule 8D to compute the disallowance at Rs. 29.75 crores but made an addition of Rs. 5.08 crores under section 14A, arguing that the assessee's disallowance of Rs. 13.78 crores was unsatisfactory. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the AO did not provide reasons for finding the assessee's disallowance unsatisfactory and that the investment in NHDC was made from interest-free funds provided by the government. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the necessity for the AO to record an objective satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D, which was not done in this case. The Tribunal also referenced the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., confirming that without such satisfaction, the AO cannot apply Rule 8D.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds, thereby favoring the assessee on the issues of provisions for gratuity and other benefits, depreciation on land, and disallowance under section 14A.
TaxTMI 