Assessee wins appeal, disallowances overturned, sales-tax incentive excluded from book profit.

The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The disallowance under Rule 8D for exempt income was deleted due to the inapplicability of the rule and lack of justification by the Assessing Officer. The disallowance of sales-tax incentive was overturned, considering it as a capital receipt for economic development. The disallowance of foreign travel expenses was also deleted as they were found to be business-related. Additionally, the sales-tax incentive was excluded from book profit under sec. 115JB.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application of Rule 8D in relation to exempt income.
2. Disallowance of sales-tax incentive.
3. Disallowance of foreign travel expenses.
4. Additional ground regarding exclusion of sales-tax incentive from book profit under sec. 115JB.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Rule 8D in Relation to Exempt Income:
The assessee contested the application of Rule 8D concerning exempt income of Rs. 4,269,842. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had not allocated any expense for earning this income and applied Rule 8D, resulting in a disallowance of Rs. 4,25,50,145. The CIT(A) partially accepted the assessee's contention, excluding investment in national saving certificates from the average value of investment related to tax-free income. The Tribunal found that Rule 8D was not applicable during the year under consideration and that the AO had not justified the disallowance, given the assessee's substantial interest-free funds. Consequently, the disallowance was deleted, and the assessee's grounds were allowed.

2. Disallowance of Sales-Tax Incentive:
The AO disallowed Rs. 1,49,70,016 on account of sales-tax incentives, treating it as a revenue receipt. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, however, examined the "Incentive Scheme 2001 for Economic Development of Kutch District" and concluded that the incentive was capital in nature, aimed at economic development and not at enhancing the assessee's profits. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., which emphasized the purpose of the subsidy. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim, treating the sales-tax incentive as a capital receipt.

3. Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 85,255 claimed by the assessee for foreign travel expenses, stating they were not incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal found that the assessee had paid Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) on these expenses, which negated the element of personal use. Consequently, the disallowance was deleted, and the assessee's ground was allowed.

4. Additional Ground Regarding Exclusion of Sales-Tax Incentive from Book Profit under Sec. 115JB:
The assessee raised an additional ground contending that the sales-tax incentive, being a capital receipt, should be excluded from book profit for determining income under sec. 115JB. The Tribunal allowed this additional ground, noting that it was legal in nature and did not require fresh material. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the view taken by the Lucknow Bench of the ITAT in the case of L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. JCIT.

Conclusion:
The appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 18.07.2016.

---