2017 (8) TMI 1608 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal excludes charges from export turnover, confirms gratuity provision & classifies API sale as slump sale

Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Versus DCIT And Vice-Versa, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI (1), Chennai Versus M/s Sanmar Speciality Chemicals

Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Versus DCIT And Vice-Versa, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI (1), Chennai Versus M/s Sanmar ... Issues Involved:1. Exclusion of freight and clearing charges from export turnover and total turnover.2. Disallowance of provision for Gratuity.3. Classification of the sale of API division as a slump sale.4. Computation of deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act.5. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Exclusion of Freight and Clearing Charges from Export Turnover and Total Turnover:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)' decision to exclude freight and clearing charges from both export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was emphasized that the numerator and denominator should be of the same figure, as established in the case of ITO v. Sak Soft Limited (2009) 313 ITR 353. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(Appeals)' order.2. Disallowance of Provision for Gratuity:The Tribunal addressed the disallowance of the provision for Gratuity made by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim based on Section 40A(7)(b) of the Act, which provides a special provision for allowing Gratuity payments to an approved fund, thus overriding Section 43B of the Act. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, citing the Kerala High Court judgment in CIT v. Commonwealth Trust (I.) Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 290, which supports a harmonious construction of both sections. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)' decision.3. Classification of the Sale of API Division as a Slump Sale:The Tribunal examined whether the sale of the API division constituted a slump sale. The Revenue argued that the sale was a slump sale under Section 2(42C) of the Act, as it was transferred as a going concern without assigning individual values to the assets. The assessee contended that the assets were individually valued. However, the Tribunal found that the agreement did not specify individual asset values and lacked details on plant and machinery. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the sale was indeed a slump sale and set aside the CIT(Appeals)' order, restoring the Assessing Officer's decision.4. Computation of Deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act:The Tribunal addressed the computation of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) had directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the deduction using profits as per Section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue argued that the deduction should be based on the amount computed under the regular method. The Tribunal noted that the matter required reconsideration, as the provisions of Section 115JB and Section 10B needed to be harmonized. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and decision in accordance with the law.5. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act:The Tribunal examined the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee argued that the investments were made from its own funds, and no expenditure was incurred, hence no disallowance should be made. The Revenue contended that the assessee had borrowed funds for investments, justifying the disallowance. The Tribunal found that the facts were not clearly established and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, directing a fresh decision based on the material provided by the assessee.Conclusion:- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)' decision on the exclusion of freight and clearing charges.- The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)' decision on the provision for Gratuity.- The Tribunal classified the sale of the API division as a slump sale, setting aside the CIT(Appeals)' order.- The Tribunal remitted the issue of deduction under Section 10B back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.- The Tribunal remitted the disallowance under Section 14A back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.Final Orders:- Revenue's appeal in I.T.A. No.738/Mds/2010 was partly allowed for statistical purposes.- Revenue's appeal in I.T.A. No. 1170/Mds/2015 was dismissed.- Assessee's appeal in I.T.A. No.986/Mds/2015 was allowed for statistical purposes.Order Pronounced on 18th August, 2017 at Chennai.