Dies/moulds expenditure allowed as revenue, penalty charges non-taxable, sections 80HH/80-IA deductions require notional depreciation adjustment

ITAT Mumbai ruled on multiple issues for the assessee. The tribunal allowed expenditure on dies/moulds as revenue expenditure, penalty charges from machinery suppliers as non-taxable, and jigs/fixtures expenditure as revenue. For deductions u/s 80HH and 80-IA, the tribunal required deducting notional depreciation from individual units but allowed inclusion of duty drawback and interest income. Technical know-how charges were allowed as business income. Wealth tax liability was allowed as deduction. GDR issue expenses were permitted u/s 35D. Sale-and-lease-back depreciation claims were dismissed as no such transactions occurred. Surplus from preference share redemption was treated as capital gains, while treasury bill surplus remained as capital gains rather than interest income.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of expenditure on dies & moulds as revenue expenditure.
2. Deletion of addition representing penalty charges received from machinery suppliers.
3. Allowability of deduction towards expenditure on jigs and fixtures.
4. Deduction u/s 80HH and 80-IA without deducting notional depreciation.
5. Deduction u/s 80HH and 80-IA by including duty drawback and interest.
6. Exclusion of Sales Tax and Excise Duty from total turnover for deduction u/s 80HHC.
7. Inclusion of technical know-how charges in profits of the business.
8. Disallowance of entertainment expenditure.
9. Allowability of expenditure on lease land for 99 years as revenue expenditure.
10. Allowability of wealth tax liability as a deduction.
11. Allowability of expenses on GDR issue u/s 35D.
12. Allowability of depreciation on sale and lease back transactions.
13. Allowability of depreciation on assets leased to JCT Ltd.
14. Taxability of surplus on redemption of treasury bills as capital gains or revenue receipts.

Summary:

1. Allowability of Expenditure on Dies & Moulds:
The Tribunal observed that the issue of allowing expenditure on dies & moulds as revenue expenditure had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years (A.Ys. 1990-91 to 1996-97). Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground.

2. Deletion of Addition Representing Penalty Charges:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of deleting the addition of penalty charges received from machinery suppliers had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in earlier years. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground, following the principle of consistency.

3. Allowability of Deduction on Jigs and Fixtures:
The Tribunal found that the issue of allowing deduction towards expenditure on jigs and fixtures had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. Respecting the principle of consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground.

4. Deduction u/s 80HH and 80-IA Without Deducting Depreciation:
The Tribunal observed that the issue of granting deduction u/s 80HH and 80-IA without deducting depreciation had been decided in favor of the revenue in previous years. The Tribunal allowed the revenue's ground, following the principle of consistency.

5. Deduction u/s 80HH and 80-IA by Including Duty Drawback and Interest:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Meghalaya Steels Ltd. and other cases, concluding that duty drawback and interest directly related to the business should be included in eligible profits for deductions u/s 80HH and 80-IA. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground.

6. Exclusion of Sales Tax and Excise Duty from Total Turnover:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of excluding Sales Tax and Excise Duty from total turnover for deduction u/s 80HHC had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. Respecting the principle of consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground.

7. Inclusion of Technical Know-How Charges:
The Tribunal observed that the issue of including technical know-how charges in profits of the business had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground.

8. Disallowance of Entertainment Expenditure:
The Tribunal found that the issue of disallowance of entertainment expenditure had been decided against the assessee in previous years. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground, noting that the issue was already decided against the assessee.

9. Allowability of Expenditure on Lease Land for 99 Years:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of allowing expenditure on lease land for 99 years as revenue expenditure had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground.

10. Allowability of Wealth Tax Liability:
The Tribunal observed that the issue of allowing wealth tax liability as a deduction had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. Respecting the principle of consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground.

11. Allowability of Expenses on GDR Issue:
The Tribunal found that the expenses on GDR issue were allowable u/s 35D as the expansion of the industrial undertaking was completed in the current assessment year. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim.

12. Allowability of Depreciation on Sale and Lease Back Transactions:
The Tribunal noted that there were no transactions with M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. in the current year. Therefore, the ground raised by the revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.

13. Allowability of Depreciation on Assets Leased to JCT Ltd.:
The Tribunal observed that the issue of allowing depreciation on assets leased to JCT Ltd. had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground.

14. Taxability of Surplus on Redemption of Treasury Bills:
The Tribunal found that the surplus on redemption of treasury bills was taxable as capital gains, not revenue receipts. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground, noting that the issue was already decided in favor of the revenue in previous years.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the revenue was partly allowed, and the cross-objection filed by the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency and previous judicial decisions in adjudicating the issues.

---