2015 (11) TMI 1752 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Deletion of Disallowances

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances under sections 36(1)(iii) and 14A of the Income Tax Act, as well as the disallowance of depreciation on ... Deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) - AO observed that the interest to the extent of interest on investment in land was not for business purpose - Further disallowance of Interest amount pertaining to investment in capital work-in-progress - Disallowance u/s 14A - expenditure related to exempt income - Held that:- Following the decision for the earlier years, CIT(A) was right in deleting the additions - Decided in favor of assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- the expenditure which is directly relatable to earning the taxable income has to be excluded. The wording of Rule 8D (ii) of the Income Tax Rules is quite clear as it has been postulated in this provision that the interest relatable to investment in tax free funds is to be computed. Under sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to examine the accounts of the assessee and only when he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure in relation to exempt income, he can determine the amount of expenditure which should be disallowed in accordance with the method prescribed, i.e. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. Higher rate of Depreciation on power evacuation facility (PEF) and transmission lines used with wind turbine generator - Held that:- power evacuation infrastructure facility is part and parcel of the windmill though partly owned by the assessee on which the assessee is entitled to the claim of depreciation at the same rate on which depreciation was allowed on the windmill. - Decided in favor of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.3. Disallowance of depreciation on Power Evacuation Facility (PEF) and transmission lines used with wind turbine generator.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii):The Revenue contested the deletion of a disallowance amounting to Rs. 82,10,154/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had disallowed interest on investments in land and capital work-in-progress, claiming they were not for business purposes. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the disallowance, stating that the investments were made from the assessee's own funds and for business purposes. The CIT(A) relied on previous orders where similar disallowances were deleted. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the facts were consistent with earlier years where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee.2. Disallowance under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D:The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s partial relief to the assessee by excluding interest directly relatable to earning taxable income from the computation under Rule 8D. The CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's contention that interest on term loans and packing credits, which were directly related to earning taxable income, should be excluded. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that Rule 8D(ii) requires the exclusion of interest directly related to taxable income. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's Cross Objection, permitting netting off interest income against interest expenditure and stating that the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D.3. Disallowance of Depreciation on PEF and Transmission Lines:The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a disallowance of Rs. 1,82,94,625/- made by the AO on depreciation claimed on PEF and transmission lines. The AO had argued that PEF and electric line installations were not eligible for 80% depreciation and were not owned by the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, relying on previous Tribunal orders in the assessee's favor. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing earlier judgments which recognized PEF and transmission lines as integral parts of the windmill, thus eligible for higher depreciation rates.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's Cross Objections, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues. The judgments consistently relied on prior rulings in the assessee's favor, ensuring the application of established legal principles and factual consistency.