2016 (5) TMI 536 - AT - Income Tax

Appeals dismissed due to monetary limits, interest income treatment, ESOP expenses allowed, Section 14A upheld. Service tax under review. Entertainment expenses reduced.

DCIT-3 (2), Mumbai Versus Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd. and Vica-Versaa

The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as not maintainable due to monetary limits. The treatment of interest income from debentures/REC bonds was dismissed. ... Disallowance of Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP) expenses - Held that:- The shares were allotted to the employees and the expenses were incurred by the assessee to motivate the employees, therefore, the expenses were incurred for business purposes - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- It is true that Assessing Officer has made adhoc disallowance which is not justified. It is necessary to evolve a system or basis for making disallowance u/s 14A. We upheld the disallowance to 1.5% of the exempt income, thus, the Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. Disallowance on account of entertainment expenses - Held that:- Considering the material available on record, factual matrix, submission of the assessee, the observation made in the assessment order/impugned order, argument of ld. DR, we find that no evidence was produced by the assessee at any stage, therefore, mere claim is not enough. In principle, we affirm the stand of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) . However, by taking a lenient view, the disallowance of ₹ 2,50,887/- is reduced to ₹ 2 lakh, thus, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed. Difference between service tax payable and the service tax paid - disallowance u/s 43B - Held that:- We find that section 43(2) define certain terms relevant to income from profit & gains of business or profession and sub-section (2) speaks about the word “paid” which means actually paid or incurred according to method of accounting. Whereas, section 43B starts with non-obstante clause and permits the deduction of any sum payable by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, in the year in which the sum is actually paid. Therefore, it can be said that adjustment, if any made, is as good as duty paid and it amounts to actual payment. If the payment has been made/adjusted before due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Lloyds Steels India Ltd. vs UOI [2001 (2) TMI 150 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ] holding that utilizing CENVAT credit to pay duty on clearance of final product is as good as making payment by debiting current account. Considering these decisions, the ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the factual matrix and decide in the light of the aforesaid decisions. This ground of the assessee is disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of Revenue's appeals due to monetary limits.2. Treatment of interest income from debentures/REC bonds.3. Disallowance of Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP) expenses.4. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.5. Addition of service tax payable under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.6. Disallowance of entertainment expenses.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Revenue's Appeals Due to Monetary Limits:- The Revenue's appeals (ITA No.940/Mum/2010 & ITA No.1653/Mum/2008) were dismissed as not maintainable because the tax effects were Rs. 8,01,542/- and Rs. 7,45,794/- respectively, which are below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakh for filing an appeal before the Tribunal as per CBDT instruction No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015.2. Treatment of Interest Income from Debentures/REC Bonds:- The assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 (ITA No.1416/Mum/2008) included a ground regarding interest income from debentures/REC bonds treated as income from other sources amounting to Rs. 1,14,03,249/-. This ground was not pressed by the assessee and was thus dismissed.3. Disallowance of Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP) Expenses:- The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 5,12,333/- for ESOP expenses. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in DCIT vs Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that ESOP expenses are business expenses incurred to retain and motivate employees and should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal also cited the decision in Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, which supported the same conclusion. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for ESOP expenses.4. Disallowance Under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:- The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 4,46,900/- under Section 14A, arguing that no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt dividend income. The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. and DCIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd., and found that an ad-hoc disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal upheld a disallowance of 1.5% of the exempt income as a reasonable estimate.5. Addition of Service Tax Payable Under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act:- The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 42,49,947/- under Section 43B, arguing that this amount represented service tax CENVAT credit availed and utilized for payment of service tax liability. The Tribunal referred to the decisions in ACIT vs Kaiser Industries Ltd. and Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. vs UOI, which held that utilizing CENVAT credit is as good as making payment. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the factual matrix and decide in light of these decisions.6. Disallowance of Entertainment Expenses:- The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 2,50,887/- and Rs. 3,85,141/- for entertainment expenses in different appeals. The Tribunal noted that no evidence was produced by the assessee to substantiate the claim that these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal affirmed the disallowance but reduced the amounts to Rs. 2 lakh and Rs. 3 lakh respectively, taking a lenient view.Final Orders:- ITA No. 940/Mum/2010 & ITA No.1653/Mum/2008 were dismissed as not maintainable.- ITA No.1416/Mum/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) was partly allowed.- ITA No.861/Mum/2010 and ITA No.862/Mum/2010 were partly allowed.