Tribunal decision: Dismissed revenue's appeal, allowed assessee's Cross Objection on section 14A, and upheld treatment of non-compete fees

Dy. Commissioner of Incometax, Circle – 1 (1), Hyderabad Versus M/s Anjani Portland Cement Ltd. And Vice-Versa

Dy. Commissioner of Incometax, Circle – 1 (1), Hyderabad Versus M/s Anjani Portland Cement Ltd. And Vice-Versa - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest under section 14A.
2. Depreciation on non-compete fees as intangible assets under section 32(1)(ii).
3. Payment of commission without deducting TDS under section 40(a)(ia).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Interest under Section 14A:
The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to re-compute the disallowance of interest and restrict it to the relatable loan funds of Rs. 6,71,70,797/- for making disallowance under section 14A. The AO had initially disallowed Rs. 1,24,12,329/- under section 14A, applying clause (i) of rule 8D, arguing that all funds utilized were loan funds directly linked to investments. The CIT(A) later directed the AO to recompute the disallowance, excluding certain amounts from the working capital loan and other loans. The Tribunal, however, held that since the exempt income was Nil, section 14A would not apply, referencing several cases including Madhucon Infra Ltd., ACIT Vs. M/s Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd., and CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's grounds in the Cross Objection (C.O.).

2. Depreciation on Non-Compete Fees as Intangible Assets under Section 32(1)(ii):
The assessee did not claim non-compete fees in the return of income but treated them as an advance payment on the balance sheet. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of depreciation on non-compete fees as intangible assets under section 32(1)(ii). The CIT(A) observed that the payment was made for commercial expediency and should be treated as capital expenditure, thus eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the acquisition of non-compete rights resulted in an enduring benefit and should be treated as an intangible capital asset. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in SA Builders Vs. CIT and other relevant case laws, concluding that the CIT(A) was within its power to allow the claim of depreciation.

3. Payment of Commission without Deducting TDS under Section 40(a)(ia):
For the AY 2009-10, the assessee's appeal included the issue of a Rs. 10 lakh payment to Mr. P. Rama Raju, which was disallowed by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The AO considered the payment as commission liable to TDS under section 194H. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, reasoning that it is common practice to call commission as a discount to avoid TDS provisions. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the payment, whether termed as a special discount or commission, was subject to TDS provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds on this issue, sustaining the disallowance made by the AO.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, allowed the assessee's Cross Objection regarding section 14A disallowance, and partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10, upholding the disallowance related to TDS on commission payments. The judgment emphasized the applicability of section 14A only in the presence of exempt income and upheld the treatment of non-compete fees as intangible assets eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii).