Tax Appeals Decisions: Assessee and Department Partially Successful, Cross Objections Dismissed

The appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 were partly allowed, while the departmental appeals for the same years were also partly allowed. Cross objections by the assessee were dismissed. Additionally, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment towards Standby Letter of Credit
2. Adjustment towards Corporate Guarantee
3. Disallowance under section 14A
4. Disallowance under section 14A in Book Profit
5. Amortization of Upfront Fees and Legal Fees as Revenue Expenditure
6. Interest under section 234B
7. Addition of Difference between Revenue as per Books of Account and Form 26AS

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adjustment towards Standby Letter of Credit:

*Assessment Year 2010-11:*

- The assessee provided SBLC for its AE, recovering a partial amount of the commission charged by the bank.
- The TPO made an adjustment for the entire commission amount, while the CIT(A) granted relief for the recovered amount and upheld the adjustment for the unrecovered amount.
- The Tribunal followed its earlier decision, restricting the adjustment to the amount not recovered from the AE.
- Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee and the revenue for AY 2010-11 was dismissed, making the cross objection by the assessee infructuous.
- Identical grounds for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 were also dismissed following the same reasoning.

2. Adjustment towards Corporate Guarantee:

*Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14:*

- The assessee provided corporate guarantees to facilitate its business expansion, without charging any commission due to bank restrictions.
- The TPO made adjustments based on differential bond yields, while the CIT(A) granted relief.
- The Tribunal rejected the argument that corporate guarantees are not international transactions, following the decision in Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd. vs. DDIT.
- The Tribunal directed the TPO to compute the guarantee commission rate following principles in CIT Vs Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. and CIT vs. Cotton Naturals (I)(P) Ltd.
- The ground raised by the revenue was partly allowed, and the cross objection by the assessee was dismissed.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A:

*Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 (GMR Infrastructure Ltd.) and 2015-16 to 2016-17 (GMR Highways Ltd.):*

- The assessee made suo moto disallowances, later withdrawn during assessment proceedings due to no exempt income.
- The AO disallowed the amounts, while the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance but upheld the suo moto disallowance.
- The Tribunal held that no disallowance under section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned, following decisions in PCIT vs GVK Project and Technical Services Ltd. and others.
- For AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, disallowance was restricted to the exempt income earned.
- Appeals by the assessee were allowed, and those by the revenue were dismissed, making the cross objections infructuous.

4. Disallowance under Section 14A in Book Profit:

*Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14:*

- The AO added disallowance under section 14A to book profits under section 115JB.
- The Tribunal, following the decision in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd., held that computation of book profits should be without resorting to section 14A.
- The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

5. Amortization of Upfront Fees and Legal Fees as Revenue Expenditure:

*Assessment Year 2010-11:*

- The assessee claimed the entire upfront fee as revenue expenditure, while the AO amortized it over the debenture tenure.
- The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision.
- The Tribunal, following the decision in Taparia Tools Ltd. V. JCIT, directed the AO to allow the entire claim in the year incurred.
- The ground raised by the assessee was allowed.

6. Interest under Section 234B:

*Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12:*

- The AO levied interest from the 1st day of April of the relevant AY, while the CIT(A) held it should be from the date of intimation under section 143(1).
- The Tribunal, following the decision in the group concern case, directed interest to be computed from the date of intimation under section 143(1).
- The ground in the revenue’s appeal was dismissed, making the cross objection infructuous.

7. Addition of Difference between Revenue as per Books of Account and Form 26AS:

*Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 (GMR Highways Ltd.):*

- The AO added the difference between gross receipts as per Form 26AS and books as undeclared business receipts.
- The CIT(A) upheld the addition.
- The Tribunal remanded the issue for de novo verification, directing the AO to consider the additional evidence and verify if the income was accounted for in subsequent years.
- The ground raised by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:

- Appeals by the assessee for AYs 2010-11 to 2013-14 were partly allowed.
- Departmental appeals for AYs 2010-11 to 2013-14 were partly allowed.
- Cross objections by the assessee were dismissed.
- Appeals by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---