2019 (8) TMI 236 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upheld Disallowance of Business Expenses & Depreciation Rates, Emphasizing Statutory Compliance

Shri Ram Krupa Medicare P. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Cir. 2 (1) (1) Baroda.

Shri Ram Krupa Medicare P. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Cir. 2 (1) (1) Baroda. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of business promotion expenses, gift to doctors, and entertainment expenses.2. Restriction of depreciation on life-saving equipment to 15% instead of 40%.3. Disallowance of depreciation on electrical installations, restricting it to 10% instead of 15%.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Business Promotion Expenses, Gift to Doctors, and Entertainment Expenses:The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 6,89,920/- out of business promotion expenses, gift to doctors, and entertainment expenses. The Tribunal noted that similar disallowances were upheld in previous assessment years (2011-12 and 2012-13) and followed the same reasoning. The assessee, engaged in cardiac care, had debited Rs. 21,86,519/- under these heads. The AO disallowed these expenses, which were partially allowed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order, referencing the Medical Council of India’s prohibition on accepting gifts and the CBDT’s circular clarifying such expenses as inadmissible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that these expenses were not wholly and exclusively for business purposes and maintained consistency with past decisions, thus dismissing the appeal.2. Restriction of Depreciation on Life-Saving Equipment to 15% Instead of 40%:The assessee claimed 40% depreciation on certain assets, which the AO restricted to 15% as per the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) upheld this restriction, and the Tribunal agreed, noting that the specific life-saving equipment listed in Appendix I(III)(3)(xia) did not include the assets in question. The Tribunal affirmed that depreciation must be granted based on the rates provided in the Income Tax Rules, and the machinery listed by the assessee did not qualify for the higher rate. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected this ground of appeal.3. Disallowance of Depreciation on Electrical Installations, Restricting it to 10% Instead of 15%:The assessee claimed 15% depreciation on electrical installations, which the AO restricted to 10%. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, and the Tribunal concurred, noting that the assessee failed to demonstrate that the electrical installations were part of the medical equipment. The Tribunal found that the installations were considered independent assets and not part of the machinery, thus justifying the lower depreciation rate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, dismissing this ground of appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, maintaining consistency with previous decisions and upholding the CIT(A)’s orders on all grounds. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to the Income Tax Rules and relevant legal provisions, ensuring that the expenses and depreciation claims were in line with statutory requirements. The order was pronounced on 30th July 2019 at Ahmedabad.