2019 (7) TMI 543 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Denial of Deduction and Expenses in Tax Appeal

M/s. Diebold Systems P. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I (4), Chennai

M/s. Diebold Systems P. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I (4), Chennai - TMI Issues:1. Deduction under Section 80IA for various charges2. Disallowance of expenses for purchase of software3. Disallowance of brokerage/commissionIssue 1: Deduction under Section 80IA for various chargesThe appellant claimed a deduction under Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act for income arising from installation, AMC charges, technical charges, consultation charges, and license fee. The Tribunal found that the income did not constitute income from the industrial undertaking established in Pondicherry and denied the deduction. The appellant failed to establish that the income was derived from the industrial undertaking, as the necessary resources were not used for earning the income. The argument that maintenance services were integral to the manufacturing and selling activity was not raised earlier and could not be raised at this stage. The alternate claim to exclude maintenance expenditure while computing profits under Section 80IA was also rejected. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the appellant did not provide grounds to interfere with the order.Issue 2: Disallowance of expenses for purchase of softwareThe appellant faced disallowance under Sections 40A(2)(a) and 40A(2)(b) for software purchased from two companies. The appellant's justification for the price difference between the software from the two companies was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove the necessity of the price difference and that the purchase price paid resulted in benefiting a specified person with substantial interest in other companies. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose regarding the disallowance of expenses for software purchases from the two companies and upheld the Tribunal's decision.Issue 3: Disallowance of brokerage/commissionThe Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of brokerage/commission paid by the appellant. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the appellant failed to establish the necessity of paying sales commission and deriving business advantage from it. The Court found no substantial question of law on this issue and upheld the Tribunal's decision to disallow the brokerage/commission amount.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal as the appellant did not present substantial questions of law to challenge the Tribunal's decision. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on all issues, emphasizing the appellant's failure to establish necessary grounds for their claims.