2016 (12) TMI 790 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Deduction for ONGC Payment, Rules in Favor of Assessee on Various Tax Issues

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Versus ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Versus ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD - TMI Issues:1. Allowance of deduction for payment to ONGC under disputed contractual liability.2. Allowance of deduction under section 43B for payments made beyond due dates.3. Allowance of depreciation on air pollution control equipments.4. Classification of expenditure on specific items as revenue or capital expenditure.5. Treatment of foreign exchange fluctuation loss.Issue 1 - Deduction for Payment to ONGC under Disputed Contractual Liability:The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision to allow deduction for payment to ONGC when the contractual liability was in dispute before the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the payment was not towards gas charges but was an advance or deposit. However, the respondent contended that the liability was accepted by the assessee as demonstrated by actual outgo from their pockets. The Court held that ONGC had already consumed the gas, necessitating payment, and that the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction. The Court referred to previous decisions and upheld the allowance of the deduction.Issue 2 - Deduction under Section 43B for Payments Made Beyond Due Dates:The Court addressed the rejection of the claim to allow deduction under section 43B for payments made beyond due dates. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the deletion of the relevant proviso was retrospective and applicable in this case. The Tribunal's decision to apply the proviso retrospectively to alleviate hardship for the assessee was upheld.Issue 3 - Allowance of Depreciation on Air Pollution Control Equipments:The Tribunal allowed depreciation on air pollution control equipments, arguing that the qualifying effect of the term 'being' was illustrative, not exhaustive. This decision was supported by a previous court ruling, and the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the allowance of depreciation.Issue 4 - Classification of Expenditure on Specific Items:Regarding the classification of expenditure on specific items like centrifugal pumps and motors, the Tribunal considered them as revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure. The Court agreed with this classification, stating that these items should be treated as revenue expenditure, leading to a ruling in favor of the assessee.Issue 5 - Treatment of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss:The Court did not provide a specific finding on the treatment of foreign exchange fluctuation loss, leaving the matter to be decided by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the law. The Tribunal's decision was not overturned, and the Tax Appeal was disposed of accordingly.In conclusion, the Court addressed various issues raised in the appeals, ruling in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds, including the deduction for disputed contractual liability, retrospective application of section 43B, allowance of depreciation, and classification of specific expenditures. The Court's decision provided clarity on these matters and upheld the Tribunal's rulings in favor of the assessee.