2018 (5) TMI 355 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms Tribunal's decision on disallowances & additional depreciation. Guidance on redeemable preference shares treatment. (1)(iia)

Vedanta Limited (Successor To Cairn India Limited) Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, New Delhi

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on disallowances under Section 14A and Arm's Length Price determination. It affirmed the allowance of ... Interpretation of Section 32(1)(iia) - Revised return - assessee withdrew the claim of additional depreciation - deduction claim under Section 80IB from ₹2042.81 crore shot up to ₹2579.07 crore - Held that:- Plain text of the explanation leaves no room for admitting the interpretive gloss that the assessee wishes to place over it. There can be a multitude of circumstances where, but for the provision, the incentive, available to all those for whom the benefit of additional depreciation was intended, could have been deprived of it. Undoubtedly, the amount of the assessee’s claim for Section 80IB deduction increased, when it sought to withdraw the additional depreciation claim. However, that single circumstance should not influence this court to ignore the plain intendment of the statute, since Parliament clearly stated that the provisions of “this sub-section” would apply, “whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income”. This court cannot re-write the statute, as is sought to be urged. For these reasons, the Court is of the opinion that no question of law arises on this aspect. Investment in redeemable preference shares as treated as international transaction and subjected to adjustment - Held that:- Tribunal need not have felt constrained by the pendency of appeal (for another year before the CIT (A)) and could have proceeded to decide the issue on merits since it did not involve elaborate fact finding. As the highest appellate authority, it has jurisdiction in its own right to decide such question. Accordingly, the direction of remand is hereby modified; the Tribunal shall decide this issue in accordance with law, after hearing parties afresh. It is clarified that the Tribunal does not need to await the decision of CIT(A) in regard to AY 2010-11 on this issue. The parties are directed to be present before the Tribunal further to the limited remand on 09.05.2018 for decision on the last question. Issues:1. Disallowances under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Arm's Length Price determination under Section 92C.2. Interpretation of Section 32(1)(iia) regarding additional depreciation claim.3. Treatment of investment in redeemable preference shares as an international transaction.Issue 1 - Disallowances under Section 14A and Arm's Length Price determination:The High Court considered whether the Tribunal erred in disallowing under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and disregarding transactions with Associated Enterprises for Arm's Length Price determination under Section 92C. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, emphasizing legal sustainability and the applicability of Explanation 5 to Section 32(ii) mandating depreciation allowance.Issue 2 - Interpretation of Section 32(1)(iia) regarding additional depreciation claim:The Court analyzed the compulsory allowance of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee withdrew a claim for additional depreciation, leading to an increased deduction claim under Section 80IB. The Court affirmed that the claim for additional depreciation is allowable under Section 32(1)(ii) and that Explanation 5 applies mandatorily, rejecting arguments that additional depreciation is an incentive separate from depreciation.Issue 3 - Treatment of investment in redeemable preference shares as an international transaction:The Tribunal remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer, which was challenged by the assessee. The Court modified the direction of remand, allowing the Tribunal to decide the issue on merits without awaiting the decision of CIT(A) for another year. The Tribunal was directed to hear the parties and decide the issue in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the High Court admitted the appeals for the first two issues and listed the matter for further hearing. The Court clarified the procedure for deciding the issue related to redeemable preference shares and directed the Tribunal to proceed with the decision without waiting for the CIT(A)'s decision for the previous year.