Assessee's Appeal Partly Allowed for AY 2005-06: Prior-Period Deduction Denied, Interest Netting Permitted

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the denial of prior-period expenditure deduction for AY 2005-06 but allowing verification for AY 2004-05. Netting-off interest on Income Tax refunds and demands was permitted. Disallowance under section 14A was adjusted, and the provision for leave encashment claim was referred back pending a Supreme Court ruling. Transfer pricing adjustments were reduced, and general grounds were disposed of. The order was issued on 27th April 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Prior Period Expenditure
2. Interest on Income Tax Refund
3. Disallowance u/s 14A
4. Provision for Leave Encashment
5. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
6. General in Nature

Detailed Analysis:

1. Prior Period Expenditure:
The assessee contested the disallowance of prior-period royalty payments of Rs. 57.27 Lacs paid to Fujiwasa Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., Japan. The payment pertained to sales made in March 2004, with royalty payable within 60 days from the end of the quarter. The assessee claimed the expenditure in AY 2005-06 instead of AY 2004-05. The Tribunal found that the liability had crystallized in AY 2004-05, and the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, should have claimed it in that year. The deduction for AY 2005-06 was rightly denied, but the AO was directed to verify and consider the claim for AY 2004-05.

2. Interest on Income Tax Refund:
The assessee received Rs. 3.01 Crores as interest on Income Tax refunds and paid Rs. 99.11 Lacs as interest on Income Tax demand, offering the net interest to tax. The AO denied the netting-off, stating no nexus between the interest paid and received, supported by the Pune Tribunal's order in Sandvik Asia. The Tribunal, referencing the Bombay High Court's judgment in DIT Vs. Bank of America NT & SA and past Tribunal decisions, allowed the netting-off, stating that between two persons, there could only be one account, and thus, the net interest should be taxed.

3. Disallowance u/s 14A:
The AO disallowed Rs. 7.10 Lacs under Rule 8D, comprising interest disallowance and expense disallowance, as the assessee earned tax-free income of Rs. 14.33 Lacs. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's own funds far exceeded the investments, and fresh investments were marginal. Hence, interest disallowance was unjustified. The expense disallowance was estimated at 5% of exempt income, and the AO was directed to re-compute accordingly.

4. Provision for Leave Encashment:
The assessee claimed a provision for leave encashment of Rs. 79.55 Lacs, initially disallowed u/s 43B(f) but later claimed based on the Calcutta High Court's judgment in Exide Industries Ltd. The lower authorities denied the claim as the revenue's appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, which had stayed the Calcutta High Court's judgment. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to apply the Supreme Court's ruling once rendered, directing the AO to compute tax as if Section 43B(f) was in force.

5. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The TP adjustment against the purchase of raw material was not pressed due to the small amount involved. The adjustment of Rs. 8 Lacs on the sale of finished goods to AEs in Thailand and Hong Kong was challenged. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that only Hong Kong CUP rates should be compared, reducing the TP adjustment to Rs. 43,620/-.

6. General in Nature:
Ground Numbers 11 & 12 were general and disposed of in terms of the above order.

Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions and adjustments made for each issue. The order was pronounced in the open court on 27th April 2018.

---