2017 (3) TMI 1679 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds Tribunal decisions on tax issues including commission, depreciation, sales tax incentive

CIT Jaipur III Versus M/s Genus Overseas Electronic Ltd., M/s Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd.

CIT Jaipur III Versus M/s Genus Overseas Electronic Ltd., M/s Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Allowance of commission and brokerage under Section 37.2. Allowance of depreciation and additional depreciation under Section 32.3. Treatment of sales tax incentive as a capital receipt.4. Claim under Section 80JJAA without being mentioned in the return.Detailed Analysis:1. Allowance of Commission and Brokerage under Section 37:The department contended that the commission and brokerage claims were unjustified as there was no proper material on record, particularly when purchasers stated no agents were involved. The Tribunal, however, found that the commission agents rendered services, evidenced by agreements and payments through cheques. The Tribunal's decision was based on substantial documentary evidence, identifying and verifying the agents, and confirming the services rendered. The Tribunal also noted that similar payments were made in previous years without material changes in facts. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view, stating that the books of account were not rejected and the commission paid was verified, thus answering the issue in favor of the assessee.2. Allowance of Depreciation and Additional Depreciation under Section 32:The department argued that the pick and place machine was not solely used for in-house research and development but also for business purposes, thus questioning the allowance of depreciation. The Tribunal's decision to allow the claim was based on the understanding that the machine's use for business purposes did not negate its eligibility for depreciation. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing that the establishment and research activities benefit the business, thus answering this issue in favor of the assessee.3. Treatment of Sales Tax Incentive as a Capital Receipt:The department argued that the sales tax incentive should be treated as a constructive payment under Section 43B. The Tribunal, relying on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax-III Vs. Nirma Ltd., held that the incentive was meant to attract capital investment and was thus a capital receipt. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the incentives were aimed at ensuring the development of backward areas and generating employment, thus answering the issue in favor of the assessee.4. Claim under Section 80JJAA:The department contended that the claim under Section 80JJAA was unjustified as it was not mentioned in the return and the employment expenses were not permanent. The Tribunal granted the benefit, considering the provisions of the section and the permanency of the employment increase. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the increase in employment was permanent and the provisions were rightly applied, thus answering this issue in favor of the assessee.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed all appeals except D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 238/2016, which was not admitted. Each issue was thoroughly considered and decided in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decisions and rejecting the department's contentions.