2019 (8) TMI 345 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decisions on various tax issues, reverses income-tax addition.

Addl. CIT, Range II, Faridabad. Versus M/s. N.H.P.C. Ltd. (Vice-Versa)

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete additions under Section 14A, disallowances in computing book profit under Section 115JB for various ... Computation of deduction u/s 80IA - income derived from sources other than generation and distribution of power is not eligible for deduction - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's own case [2019 (5) TMI 1664 - ITAT DELHI] disallowance by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) to the tune of ₹ 2,99,54,875/- while computing the deduction allowable u/s 80IA is not sustainable and all the items of income qua which deduction has been sought by the assessee u/s 80IA are allowable deduction and order passed by the AO and ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable. Consequently, ground no.2 is determined in favour of the assessee. MAT computation - inclusion of income-tax on perquisites on accommodation in computing the book profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- Income-tax paid or payable or provision thereof could not be added back to arrive at the peak profit as the adjustment thereof was not supported by the statutory provisions. In view of the matter, addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be deleted. Ground No.3 is determined in favour of the assessee. Addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- Assessee has not made investment out of the interest bearing funds rather made entire investment out of its own funds and out of interest free funds provided by the Government of India and has suo motu disallowed a sum of ₹ 41,34,68,339/- u/s 14A of the Act, AO without recording any valid satisfaction as to how the working made by the assessee is not correct invoked the provisions contained u/s 14A mechanically, no further disallowance can be made in mechanical manner. So, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition and there is no scope for interference into the same. Consequently, Ground No.1 is determined against the Revenue. Adjustment in book profit u/s 115JB in respect of provisions - provisions made for gratuity, leave encashment, post-retirement medical benefits, LTC, baggage allowance and matching contribution on leave encashment - HELD THAT:- Following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in assessee’s own case for AY 2002-03 [2010 (7) TMI 969 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] nd subsequent decisions rendered by the Tribunal for AYs 2004-05 to 2010-11, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT (A) has rightly held that provision for gratuity, leave encashment, post-retirement medical benefits, LTC, baggage allowance and matching contribution on leave encashment had been estimated on actuarial basis and was liability which was credited in present though it is to be discharged on future date, so it cannot be held to be a provision for unascertained liability so as to fall under clause (c) of Explanation 115JB (2). Disallowance in computing the book profit u/s 115JB - depreciation claimed on land after amortization of land - no depreciation is allowable under Companies Act and nor any rate of depreciation is provided under Schedule XIV - land taken for use from the State government without transferring the title - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05, we are of the considered view that in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT [2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] followed by coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for AY 2004-05, AO has no jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the P&L account except to the extent provided in Explanation to section 115J. So, the contention raised by the Revenue that the amount is not a depreciable asset is not tenable and the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition. So, we find no scope to interfere in the findings returned by the ld. CIT (A), hence Ground No.3 is determined against the Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition under Section 14A by applying Rule 8D.2. Deletion of disallowance in computing book profit under Section 115JB for various provisions.3. Deletion of disallowance in computing book profit under Section 115JB for depreciation on land.4. Non-consideration of other income for deduction under Section 80IA.5. Addition of income-tax on perquisites in computing book profit under Section 115JB.Issue-Wise Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition under Section 14A by Applying Rule 8D:The AO made an addition of Rs. 41,34,68,339/- under Section 14A by applying Rule 8D for disallowance of expenditure to earn dividend income. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the investment in shares was made from interest-free funds provided by the Government of India and internal accruals, not from interest-bearing funds. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO did not record any dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt income. The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, which mandates that the AO must record cogent reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D.2. Deletion of Disallowance in Computing Book Profit under Section 115JB for Various Provisions:The AO added Rs. 1,58,19,47,693/- to the book profit under Section 115JB for provisions made for gratuity, leave encashment, post-retirement medical benefits, LTC, baggage allowance, and matching contribution on leave encashment, deeming them unascertained liabilities. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld this decision. The Tribunal referenced the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2002-03, which held that such provisions made on an actuarial basis are ascertained liabilities and not contingent ones.3. Deletion of Disallowance in Computing Book Profit under Section 115JB for Depreciation on Land:The AO disallowed Rs. 2,84,51,640/- in computing book profit under Section 115JB for depreciation claimed on land, arguing that no depreciation is allowable on land under the Companies Act. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld this decision. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee's case for AY 2004-05, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT, stating that the AO cannot go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except as provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.4. Non-Consideration of Other Income for Deduction under Section 80IA:The AO disallowed Rs. 2,99,54,875/- by not considering it for deduction under Section 80IA, arguing that only income from generation and distribution of power is eligible. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, citing its own ruling in the assessee's case for AY 2010-11 and the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., which clarified that the term 'derived from' should be interpreted to include various business-related incomes.5. Addition of Income-Tax on Perquisites in Computing Book Profit under Section 115JB:The AO added Rs. 1,50,50,111/- for income-tax on perquisites of accommodation provided to employees while computing book profit under Section 115JB. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The Tribunal, however, deleted the addition, referencing its decision in the assessee's case for AY 2010-11 and the Mumbai Tribunal's ruling in Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that such taxes borne by the assessee do not constitute income tax for the assessee and should not be added back to compute book profit.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, thereby upholding the deletions and disallowances made by the CIT(A) in favor of the assessee.