Tribunal allows appeal on depreciation, dismisses Department's claims on various expenses, remands others for verification.

The assessee's appeal regarding depreciation computation was allowed as the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's decision to force depreciation incorrect. The Department's appeal on Up Stream Rolling Mills (USRM) trial run expenditure, lease rental payment, debit balance written-off, and professional fee for loan restructuring was dismissed. The appeals on product development expenses and watch and ward expenditure were remanded for fresh examination and verification, respectively. The order was pronounced on 29.06.2016.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation Computation
2. Up Stream Rolling Mills (USRM) Trial Run Expenditure
3. Lease Rental Payment
4. Debit Balance Written-off
5. Professional Fee for Financial Loan Restructuring
6. Product Development Expenses
7. Watch and Ward Expenditure

Detailed Analysis:

1. Depreciation Computation:
The primary issue is whether the depreciation amounting to Rs. 29,84,50,639 should be mandatorily computed and allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) even if the assessee has not claimed it. The assessee argued that claiming depreciation is optional and relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v/s Mahendra Mills Ltd. The AO, however, contended that the use of "shall" in Section 32(1) of the Act makes depreciation computation mandatory. The Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 32(1) by Explanation 5, which made depreciation mandatory, is effective from 1st April 2002 and does not apply to the assessment year in question. Hence, the AO's decision to force depreciation was incorrect, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

2. Up Stream Rolling Mills (USRM) Trial Run Expenditure:
The Department challenged the allowance of Rs. 6,32,80,792 as revenue expenditure. The AO considered it capital expenditure necessary for commissioning the plant. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, however, upheld that the expenditure was revenue in nature, as the trial run was part of the existing business and did not involve setting up a new business. The Tribunal referenced its previous decision for the assessment year 1996-97, confirming that such trial run expenses are deductible as revenue expenditure.

3. Lease Rental Payment:
The Department contested the allowance of Rs. 2,29,11,128 as lease rental payments, arguing the transactions were not genuine. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’s decision, noting that similar transactions were accepted in the earlier assessment year and that the transactions were genuine and legally permissible. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court decision in M/s. I.C.D.S. v/s CIT, which validated such lease-back transactions.

4. Debit Balance Written-off:
The AO disallowed the deduction of Rs. 58,51,135 for debit balance written-off, arguing it did not meet the conditions under Section 36(2). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it as a trading loss incurred in the ordinary course of business. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing the decision of the Bombay High Court in I.B.M. World Trade Corporation v/s CIT, which supports the deduction of irrecoverable advances as business losses.

5. Professional Fee for Financial Loan Restructuring:
The AO disallowed Rs. 25 lakh paid for financial restructuring, considering it capital expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it as revenue expenditure, noting no new asset was created. The Tribunal upheld this, emphasizing the expenditure was for restructuring existing loans, resulting in reduced interest costs and immediate financial benefits, thus qualifying as revenue expenditure.

6. Product Development Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 12,08,98,619 as capital expenditure for developing new grades of steel bars. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this, citing the accounting treatment of the expenditure as deferred. The Tribunal, however, noted that the nature of the expenditure (whether it resulted in an asset of enduring benefit or was part of regular manufacturing activities) was not properly examined. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination and determination.

7. Watch and Ward Expenditure:
The AO disallowed Rs. 23,93,495 as prior period expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it, noting it crystallized during the year. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to verify if the expenditure indeed crystallized during the year after negotiation with third parties.

Conclusion:
- Assessee’s appeal regarding depreciation computation was allowed.
- Department’s appeal on USRM trial run expenditure was dismissed.
- Department’s appeal on lease rental payment was dismissed.
- Department’s appeal on debit balance written-off was dismissed.
- Department’s appeal on professional fee for loan restructuring was dismissed.
- Assessee’s appeal on product development expenses was remanded for fresh examination.
- Department’s appeal on watch and ward expenditure was remanded for verification.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.06.2016.

---