2022 (5) TMI 1596 - AT - Income Tax

Club entrance fees allowed as business expenditure following Otis Elevator precedent, TDR valuation accepted at INR 2.29 crore per sq. meter

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Associated Cement Co. Ltd And ACC Limited, (Formerly known as The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 1 (1), Mumbai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Associated Cement Co. Ltd And ACC Limited, (Formerly known as The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), ... Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of Club Entrance/Subscription Fees.2. Treatment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs).3. Taxability of Sales Tax Subsidy.4. Expenditure on Jukehi Road at Kymore.5. Expenditure on Dry Fly Ash Handling System at Madukkarai.6. Provision for Director’s Retirement Benefit.7. Computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB.8. Revenue generated from trial run production.9. Expenses on Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS).10. Capital Expenditure debited to Profit & Loss Account.11. Deferred Revenue Expenditure of earlier years.12. Profit on sale of fixed assets.13. Disallowance under Section 14A.14. Setting off of unabsorbed depreciation.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Club Entrance/Subscription Fees:- Facts: The Assessee incurred club entrance and subscription fees which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer as capital expenditure.- CIT(A) Decision: Held as revenue expenditure for smooth running of business, relying on past Tribunal decisions and Bombay High Court rulings.- Tribunal Decision: Confirmed CIT(A)’s decision, following jurisdictional High Court rulings and past Tribunal decisions.2. Treatment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs):- Facts: Assessee surrendered land and received TDRs, which were sold. The capital gains were initially offered to tax but later withdrawn in the revised return.- CIT(A) Decision: Held that the cost of acquisition of TDRs could not be determined.- Tribunal Decision: Overturned CIT(A)’s decision, holding that the fair market value of the land surrendered as on 01.04.1981 should be adopted as the cost of acquisition of TDRs.3. Taxability of Sales Tax Subsidy:- Facts: Assessee received sales tax subsidies which were treated as revenue receipts by the Assessing Officer.- CIT(A) Decision: Held the subsidies as capital receipts.- Tribunal Decision: Remanded the issue to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after examining the incentive schemes, following past Tribunal decisions.4. Expenditure on Jukehi Road at Kymore:- Facts: Assessee incurred expenditure on constructing a road which was claimed as revenue expenditure.- CIT(A) Decision: Held as revenue expenditure, relying on Supreme Court decision in Assessee’s own case.- Tribunal Decision: Confirmed CIT(A)’s decision, following past Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court ruling.5. Expenditure on Dry Fly Ash Handling System at Madukkarai:- Facts: Assessee incurred expenditure on constructing a handling system which was claimed as revenue expenditure.- CIT(A) Decision: Held as revenue expenditure, as the system was not owned by the Assessee.- Tribunal Decision: Confirmed CIT(A)’s decision, applying Supreme Court rulings.6. Provision for Director’s Retirement Benefit:- Facts: Assessee made a provision based on actuarial valuation, claimed as deductible.- CIT(A) Decision: Allowed the deduction, holding it as an ascertained liability.- Tribunal Decision: Confirmed CIT(A)’s decision, following Supreme Court and past Tribunal decisions.7. Computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB:- Facts: Various provisions were added back to the book profits by the Assessing Officer.- CIT(A) Decision: Deleted the additions, holding them as ascertained liabilities or not covered by Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2).- Tribunal Decision: Confirmed CIT(A)’s decision for most provisions but remanded the issue of provision for contingencies back to the Assessing Officer.8. Revenue generated from trial run production:- Facts: Revenue from trial run production was added to book profits by the Assessing Officer.- CIT(A) Decision: Deleted the addition, following accounting standards.- Tribunal Decision: Confirmed CIT(A)’s decision, following past Tribunal decisions.9. Expenses on Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS):- Facts: VRS expenses were added back to book profits by the Assessing Officer.- CIT(A) Decision: Deleted the addition, following Supreme Court ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd.- Tribunal Decision: Confirmed CIT(A)’s decision, following past Tribunal decisions.10. Capital Expenditure debited to Profit & Loss Account:- Facts: Capital expenditure was added back to book profits by the Assessing Officer.- CIT(A) Decision: Deleted the addition, following Supreme Court ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd.- Tribunal Decision: Confirmed CIT(A)’s decision, following past Tribunal decisions.11. Deferred Revenue Expenditure of earlier years:- Facts: Deferred revenue expenditure was added back to book profits by the Assessing Officer.- CIT(A) Decision: Deleted the addition, following Supreme Court ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd.- Tribunal Decision: Confirmed CIT(A)’s decision, following past Tribunal decisions.12. Profit on sale of fixed assets:- Facts: Profit on sale of fixed assets was excluded from book profits in the revised return.- CIT(A) Decision: Deleted the addition, following past CIT(A) orders.- Tribunal Decision: Overturned CIT(A)’s decision, following past Tribunal decisions against the Assessee.13. Disallowance under Section 14A:- Facts: Proportionate interest expenditure was disallowed under Section 14A.- CIT(A) Decision: Deleted the disallowance, holding that investments were made out of own funds.- Tribunal Decision: Confirmed CIT(A)’s decision, finding no evidence to contradict CIT(A)’s factual findings.14. Setting off of unabsorbed depreciation:- Facts: Issue pertains to setting off unabsorbed depreciation against short-term capital gains.- CIT(A) Decision: Confirmed the setting off as per Assessing Officer’s computation.- Tribunal Decision: Confirmed CIT(A)’s decision, following past Tribunal decisions against the Assessee.Conclusion:- Revenue’s Appeal: Partly allowed.- Assessee’s Appeal: Dismissed.