2016 (8) TMI 1450 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows assessee's appeal, partly allows Revenue's appeal, directs re-examination, and upholds certain disallowances

Forbes Gokak Ltd. Versus The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, OSD, Range 1 (1) And The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1 (1), Mumbai

Forbes Gokak Ltd. Versus The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, OSD, Range 1 (1) And The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1 (1), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of Interest on Borrowings2. Disallowance of Non-compete Fees3. Disallowance of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Contribution4. Direction for Deduction under Section 80HHC5. Setting off Losses While Computing Deduction under Section 80HHC6. Deduction of Miscellaneous Income and Other Items from Profit While Computing Deduction under Section 80HHC7. Not Allowing Set-off of Incentives Against Profits8. Deduction of Income from Services While Computing Profits under Section 80HHC9. Computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB10. Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D11. Levy of Interest under Section 220(2)Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Interest on Borrowings:The Tribunal found that the issue of disallowance of interest on borrowings amounting to Rs. 7,61,476/- has been previously decided against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the previous assessment year 2002-03. However, for the current year under consideration, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's argument that exemption under section 10(33) was not available for the year 2003-04, and thus, the entire income was taxable, resulting in no question of disallowance. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted, and this ground of the assessee’s appeal was allowed.2. Disallowance of Non-compete Fees:The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of non-compete fees amounting to Rs. 34,58,616/- paid to ex-directors, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai for the previous assessment year 2002-03. The ground was dismissed, maintaining judicial consistency.3. Disallowance of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Contribution:The assessee withdrew this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn.4. Direction for Deduction under Section 80HHC:The Tribunal did not specifically address this ground in detail as it was withdrawn by the assessee.5. Setting off Losses While Computing Deduction under Section 80HHC:The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC, profits must be computed after giving full effect to other provisions of the Act, including carry forward and set off of losses. This ground was dismissed.6. Deduction of Miscellaneous Income and Other Items from Profit While Computing Deduction under Section 80HHC:The Tribunal restored this ground to the file of the AO for re-examination, as the AO had not examined the issue in detail. The ground was allowed for statistical purposes.7. Not Allowing Set-off of Incentives Against Profits:The Tribunal allowed this ground in favor of the assessee, following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Avani Exports, which held that the amendment to section 80HHC by adding third and fourth provisos is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.8. Deduction of Income from Services While Computing Profits under Section 80HHC:The Tribunal restored this issue to the AO for re-examination, as the detailed break-up of service income had not been examined by the authorities below. The ground was allowed for statistical purposes.9. Computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB:Following the decision in the assessee’s own case for the previous assessment year 2002-03, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.10. Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D:The Tribunal held that the interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D is consequential and decided accordingly.11. Levy of Interest under Section 220(2):This ground was also held to be consequential and decided accordingly.Revenue’s Appeal:1. Restriction of Disallowance to Rs. 7,61,476/-:This ground was dismissed, maintaining judicial consistency with the decision in the assessee’s appeal.2. Deletion of Disallowance of Rs. 7,92,843/-:Following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the previous assessment year 2002-03, this ground was dismissed.3. Deletion of Disallowance of Rs. 9,54,432/-:The Tribunal dismissed this ground, following the decision in the assessee’s own case for the previous assessment year 2002-03.4. Re-computation of Book Profits:The Tribunal upheld the AO's order and allowed this ground of the Revenue, finding no reason to sustain the findings of the CIT(A).5. Reduction of Book Profits by Quantum of Notionally Computed Deduction under Section 80HHC:Following the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal, this ground was dismissed.6. Interest under Section 234D:The Tribunal allowed this ground, directing the AO to recompute the interest in view of the decision in CIT vs. IOCL.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed.