Court Admits Appeals on Leave Salary Issue for 2004-05, Rejects Challenges on Expenses & Deductions

Commissioner of Income Tax ­ LTU   Versus Grasim Industries Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax ­ LTU   Versus Grasim Industries Ltd. - TMI Issues:
1. Allowance of provision for leave salary
2. Allocation of Head Office expenses to profits derived from export-oriented units
3. Allocation of Head Office expenses to deductions claimed under Section 80IA and 80IB
4. Claim of depreciation on 'goodwill'

Analysis:

1. Provision for Leave Salary:
The Appeals challenge the Tribunal's order allowing the provision for leave salary for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2003-04. The primary question raised is whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing this provision based on Supreme Court decisions predating the introduction of Section 43B(f) and the status of a judgment from the Calcutta High Court. The judgment does not delve into this issue further.

2. Allocation of Head Office Expenses to Export-Oriented Units:
The Revenue contested the allocation of Head Office expenses to profits derived from 100% export-oriented units under Section 10B and deductions claimed under Section 80IA and 80IB. The Tribunal's decision, following a similar ruling for the assessment year 2002-03, favored the Assessee. The Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of justification from the Revenue on why the same rationale should not apply to units under Section 80IA and 80IB.

3. Allocation of Head Office Expenses to Deductions under Section 80IA and 80IB:
Continuing from the previous issue, the Tribunal's order disallowed the allocation of Head Office expenses to profits derived from units claiming deductions under Section 80IA and 80IB. The Court's decision aligned with the earlier ruling on Section 10B units, highlighting the Revenue's failure to present a compelling argument against extending this logic to other units.

4. Claim of Depreciation on 'Goodwill':
The question of allowing the claim of depreciation on 'goodwill' was raised, with the Court noting that a similar issue was addressed in a previous appeal for the assessment year 2002-03. Following the decision made in that appeal, the Court did not entertain this question, indicating that it did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

In conclusion, the Court admitted the Appeals on the substantial question of law related to the provision for leave salary, while rejecting the other questions based on the reasoning provided in separate orders for similar issues in previous appeals. The Respondents waived service, and the Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Tribunal for further proceedings.