Assessee wins on bad debts, R&D expenses under section 35(2AB), and interest expenditure proportionate disallowances

ITAT Chennai allowed the assessee's appeal on multiple grounds. The tribunal deleted disallowances of proportionate interest expenditure citing business nexus and sufficient own funds. Bad debts write-offs totaling Rs. 3579.61 lacs relating to government fertilizer handling charges from 1992-93 were allowed as deductions. R&D facility expenditure under section 35(2AB) was permitted for the entire assessment year despite DSIR recognition expiring mid-year. However, electricity tax provisions under section 43B and contingent hire charges were upheld as disallowances. The tribunal restored one issue regarding subsidiary company interest to AO for verification and directed capital loss treatment for equity investment losses.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure.
2. Disallowance of bad debts written-off.
3. Disallowance of 50% expenditure towards R&D facility.
4. Disallowance of electricity tax under normal provisions and u/s 115JB.
5. Assessment of interest income.
6. Disallowance of business expenditure in connection with hire charges.
7. Disallowance of overdue interest payable to subsidiary company.
8. Disallowance of business loss on equity investment.

Summary:

1. Disallowance of Proportionate Interest Expenditure:
The assessee claimed interest expenditure against loan liabilities, which was disallowed proportionately by the AO due to advances made to group entities. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance but the Tribunal found that the investments had a business nexus and sufficient own funds were available. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT V/s S.A. Builders, deleted the disallowance, allowing the assessee's grounds.

2. Disallowance of Bad Debts Written-off:
The assessee's claim for bad debts, including amounts due from the Government and interest on fertilizer subsidy, was disallowed by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld most disallowances but directed verification for the interest subsidy. The Tribunal allowed the write-off of handling charges and interest on subsidy, finding them to be genuine bad debts. The remaining bad debts were also allowed based on the Supreme Court's decision in TRF Ltd.

3. Disallowance of 50% Expenditure towards R&D Facility:
The assessee's claim for R&D expenses was disallowed due to lack of approval in Form 3CM. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in M/s Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd., directed the AO to grant full deduction, finding the R&D facility was approved, and the expenditure incurred was eligible for deduction.

4. Disallowance of Electricity Tax u/s 43B and u/s 115JB:
The AO disallowed the electricity tax claimed as contingent liability. The CIT(A) upheld this, stating it was an invalid claim for the year. The Tribunal confirmed this disallowance, noting the liability had not crystallized and was contingent, thus covered under Sec.43B.

5. Assessment of Interest Income:
The AO added interest expenditure relief from CDR to income, which the CIT(A) directed to verify. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s directions apt, noting the assessee had accounted for interest at reduced rates and upheld the verification process.

6. Disallowance of Business Expenditure in Connection with Hire Charges:
The AO disallowed the deposit made as per court direction, treating it as non-business expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld this as a contingent liability. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance, noting the liability had not crystallized and was contingent.

7. Disallowance of Overdue Interest Payable to Subsidiary Company:
The AO disallowed overdue interest payable due to lack of documentation. The CIT(A) upheld this, finding no business nexus. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification, noting the assessee had provided evidence of business transactions.

8. Disallowance of Business Loss on Equity Investment:
The AO disallowed the business loss claim on investment write-off, not allowing the alternative capital loss claim. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal allowed the alternative claim for long-term capital loss to be carried forward, directing the AO to compute it accordingly.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions for each issue. The order was pronounced on 10th January, 2024.

---