2019 (6) TMI 1428 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Tribunal: Firm's Conversion to Pvt Ltd Co Not a 'Transfer'

DCIT, Circle – 6, The ACIT Circle – 3 (2), Ahmedabad Versus Vishal Engineering and Galvanizers

DCIT, Circle – 6, The ACIT Circle – 3 (2), Ahmedabad Versus Vishal Engineering and Galvanizers - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of disallowance on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and Short Term Capital Gain (STCG).2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.3. Ad hoc disallowance of expenses on account of personal usage.4. Disallowance of commission expenses.5. Addition on account of difference in job work receipts.6. Addition on account of under-valuation of closing stock under section 145A.7. Disallowance under section 40A(2) for excessive interest paid.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Deletion of Disallowance on Account of LTCG and STCG:The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 25,46,06,987/- as LTCG and Rs. 3,26,02,919/- as STCG by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the revaluation of land and subsequent conversion of the firm into a Private Limited Company did not constitute a 'transfer' under section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) accepted this argument, citing precedents such as CIT vs. Texspin Engg. & Mfg. Works and CIT vs. Rita Mechanical Works, which held that conversion under Part IX of the Companies Act does not amount to a transfer by way of distribution of capital assets. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the revaluation did not result in any actual transfer or distribution of assets to partners.2. Disallowance under Section 14A:The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 4,01,147/- under section 14A for investments made from non-interest-bearing funds. The Tribunal observed that the disallowance should not exceed the exempt income earned, which was Rs. 2,09,251/-. Following the principle established in Madhusudan Industries Ltd. vs. ITO, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to the amount of exempt income, thereby partially allowing the assessee's appeal.3. Ad Hoc Disallowance of Expenses:The assessee contested the ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 2,24,276/- for personal usage of telephone, mobile, insurance, vehicle repair, and maintenance expenses. The Tribunal found that the disallowance was based on conjecture and restricted it to 20% of the disallowed amount, i.e., Rs. 44,854/-, considering the difficulty in segregating personal and business expenses.4. Disallowance of Commission Expenses:The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 20,08,977/- paid as commission. The CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance, stating that mere introduction of customers does not constitute a service. However, the Tribunal, relying on precedents such as Suzlon Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT and Swastic Textile Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, held that introducing potential customers does qualify as a service under section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal thus deleted the disallowance.5. Addition on Account of Difference in Job Work Receipts:The Revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 2,11,26,463/- added due to a discrepancy between job work receipts as per Form 26AS and the assessee's books. The CIT(A) found that the discrepancy arose because certain sales were recorded as job work by the payees. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the amount had been correctly accounted for in the sales, making the addition unwarranted.6. Addition on Account of Under-Valuation of Closing Stock:The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 62,93,378/- for under-valuation of closing stock under section 145A. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the assessee's method of accounting, which did not include excise duty and VAT in the closing stock, was in compliance with AS-2 and had no impact on profitability. The Tribunal, following judgments such as DCIT vs. AIA Engineering Ltd., confirmed the deletion.7. Disallowance under Section 40A(2):The Revenue's appeal against the deletion of Rs. 2,25,530/- disallowed under section 40A(2) for excessive interest paid was dismissed. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, following the principle of consistency as the Revenue had not appealed against a similar deletion in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2011-12. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.Conclusion:- Revenue’s appeals in ITA No. 2316/Ahd/2014 and ITA No. 3055/Ahd/2015 were dismissed.- Assessee’s Cross Objection No. 271/Ahd/2014 was partly allowed.- Assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2945/Ahd/2015 was partly allowed.