TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal ruling: Exclusion of excise duty, leasehold land expenses deduction, arm's length guarantee fee rate upheld</h1> <h3>Greenply Industries Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Assam And (Vice-Versa)</h3> Greenply Industries Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Assam And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Education cess on Income Tax and Dividend Distribution Tax.2. Exclusion of Excise Duty Exemption as capital receipt in computing book profit under section 115JB.3. Deduction of Amortization of Leasehold Land expenses.4. Arm's length rate of Corporate Guarantee fees.5. Downward adjustment in respect of purchases made by eligible units from non-eligible units.Detailed Analysis:1. Education cess on Income Tax and Dividend Distribution Tax:- Summary: The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.2. Exclusion of Excise Duty Exemption as capital receipt in computing book profit under section 115JB:- Facts: The assessee claimed excise duty exemption for its manufacturing units located in backward areas, amounting to Rs.87,98,09,432/-. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction under normal provisions but did not address the exclusion while computing book profit under section 115JB.- Arguments: The assessee argued that the excise duty exemption is a capital receipt and should be excluded from book profit computation. Various judgments, including CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited and CIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited, were cited to support this claim.- Decision: The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the excise duty exemption, being a capital receipt, should not be included in the book profit for computing MAT under section 115JB. The Tribunal referred to multiple precedents supporting this view.- Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the exclusion of the excise duty exemption from the book profit computation under section 115JB.3. Deduction of Amortization of Leasehold Land expenses:- Facts: The assessee claimed deduction for amortization of leasehold land expenses amounting to Rs.18,73,242/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed this expenditure, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance but increased the deduction under section 80IC/80IE for lease rentals attributable to eligible units.- Arguments: The assessee argued that the amortization of leasehold land expenses should be allowed as a deduction under section 37, citing decisions like Empire Jute Co. Limited vs. CIT and DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited.- Decision: The Tribunal held that the amortization of leasehold land expenses is allowable under section 37, as it is expended wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal found no error in the accounting treatment of amortization and allowed the deduction.- Conclusion: The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s finding and allowed the deduction for amortization of leasehold land expenses.4. Arm's length rate of Corporate Guarantee fees:- Facts: The assessee provided corporate guarantees for loans taken by its Associated Enterprises (AEs) and charged no fees. The TPO suggested a guarantee fee rate ranging from 1.22% to 1.69%, leading to an addition of Rs.43,67,295/-. The CIT(A) reduced the rate to 0.5%.- Arguments: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in reducing the rate without scientific or logical reasons. The assessee cited various Tribunal rulings where the arm's length guarantee fee was set between 0.3% and 0.5%.- Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the 0.5% rate is supported by substantial judicial precedents, including the case of Everest Kento Cylinder Ltd.- Conclusion: The Tribunal confirmed the arm's length guarantee fee rate at 0.5%, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.5. Downward adjustment in respect of purchases made by eligible units from non-eligible units:- Facts: The TPO suggested a downward adjustment of Rs.2,48,39,215/- for purchases made by eligible units from non-eligible units, alleging that eligible units earned more than ordinary profits. The CIT(A) deleted the adjustment.- Arguments: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the adjustment without sufficient cause and without considering the credit rating of the AE. The assessee contended that the higher profit margins were due to factors like excise duty exemption and lower cost of production.- Decision: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the TPO's adjustment was unsustainable, as the eligible units' higher profits were attributable to various legitimate factors. The Tribunal also noted that the TPO failed to provide a detailed analysis of how the purchases yielded excess profits.- Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the downward adjustment.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, providing detailed reasoning for each issue based on judicial precedents and the specific facts of the case.
TaxTMI 