2019 (7) TMI 299 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate tribunal rules on tax case, limits disallowance, upholds deductions & royalty treatment

M/s Mahle Filter Systems Pvt Ltd Versus The Addl. C.I.T Range– 6, Circle 6 (1) New Delhi And The D.C.I.T Circle – 6 (1) New Delhi Versus M/s Mahle Filter Systems Pvt Ltd.

M/s Mahle Filter Systems Pvt Ltd Versus The Addl. C.I.T Range– 6, Circle 6 (1) New Delhi And The D.C.I.T Circle – 6 (1) New Delhi Versus M/s Mahle Filter ... Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act.2. Disallowance of expenses distributed to employees.3. Treatment of rental income.4. MAT credit claim.5. Deduction under section 80IC.6. Inclusion of 'Other Income' for section 80IC deduction.7. Enhancement of deduction under section 80IC.8. Disallowance of royalty payments.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act:The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 88,577/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The appellate tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention based on the Delhi High Court's decision that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income. The assessee had disclosed exempt dividend income of Rs. 20,995/-. Consequently, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 20,995/-. This ground was partly allowed.2. Disallowance of expenses distributed to employees:The AO disallowed 50% of the Rs. 3,14,148/- debited as gift expenses, citing section 37(1). The assessee argued that since Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) was paid, no disallowance should be made. The tribunal noted that the AO had accepted 50% of the gift as eligible expenditure and, given the settled law that no disallowance can be made once expenses are exigible to FBT, directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,57,074/-.3. Treatment of rental income:The AO treated rental receipts of Rs. 47,26,510/- from a factory building as 'income from other sources' instead of 'income from house property' because the agreement was a 'Leave and License' rather than a 'Lease Rental'. The tribunal held that the nature of the agreement did not change the fact that the income was rental income from house property. The AO was directed to tax the rental income under 'income from house property' with the applicable deduction under section 24.4. MAT credit claim:The tribunal directed the AO to allow MAT credit amounting to Rs. 72,30,482/- as per the provisions of law and the assessee's assessment history. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.5. Deduction under section 80IC:The AO disallowed Rs. 2.96 crores under section 80IC, assuming a wrong amalgamation sequence. The tribunal clarified that the manufacturing unit at Parwanoo, eligible for deduction, always belonged to the assessee (formerly M/s Purolator India Ltd.). The amalgamation was approved by the Delhi High Court, and the unit continued to belong to the assessee. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's grounds.6. Inclusion of 'Other Income' for section 80IC deduction:The AO disallowed Rs. 64,23,771/- of 'Other Income' from the section 80IC deduction, arguing a lack of direct nexus with the eligible business. The tribunal found that except for rental income and fixed deposit interest, the other items were directly linked to the industrial undertaking. Thus, the CIT(A)'s decision to include these incomes for section 80IC deduction was upheld.7. Enhancement of deduction under section 80IC:The AO recomputed the deduction, suspecting profit shifting to the Parwanoo unit. The CIT(A) found that the head office had allocated expenses to units based on sales ratios. The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO's findings were ill-founded and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.8. Disallowance of royalty payments:The AO treated royalty payments of Rs. 33,27,126/- as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) and the tribunal found that the payments were for using technical know-how without acquiring any enduring benefit or capital asset, thus allowable as revenue expenditure. The tribunal directed the withdrawal of depreciation allowed by the AO on these payments.Conclusion:The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2019.