2022 (8) TMI 780 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Tribunal rulings clarify treatment of capital grants, losses, penalties

Uttar Vij Company Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4 (4) Baroda And Uttar Vij Company Ltd. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Baroda And Vice - Versa

Uttar Vij Company Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4 (4) Baroda And Uttar Vij Company Ltd. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Baroda ... Issues Involved:1. Reduction of Capital Grants & Subsidies and Consumers' Contribution from the total cost of Plant & Machinery for depreciation purposes.2. Disallowance of small and low-value items written off.3. Disallowance of miscellaneous losses and write-offs.4. Addition of prior period income already taxed in earlier years.5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.6. Addition of Capital Grants & Subsidies and Consumers' Contribution for A.Y. 2011-12.7. Classification of interest income from other loans as Business Income vs. Income from Other Sources.8. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of increase in power purchase cost.9. Classification of income from miscellaneous receipts as Business Income vs. Income from Other Sources.10. Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Reduction of Capital Grants & Subsidies and Consumers' Contribution from the total cost of Plant & Machinery for depreciation purposes:The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for adjudication after verifying the proportionate amount and grant relating to different assets and applying the actual rate of depreciation. The facts were found identical to a previous case (Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited vs. ITO), where a similar issue was remanded back.2. Disallowance of small and low-value items written off:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim of Rs. 35,000 towards small and low-value items written off, noting that similar expenses were allowed in a subsidiary company (Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited).3. Disallowance of miscellaneous losses and write-offs:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim of Rs. 18,98,964 towards miscellaneous losses and write-offs, noting that similar losses were allowed in the subsidiary company. These losses were deemed to be incurred in day-to-day business activities and were purely revenue in nature.4. Addition of prior period income already taxed in earlier years:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the assessee's contention that the prior period income was already taxed in earlier years. If verified, relief should be granted to avoid double taxation.5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act:The ground relating to the initiation of penalty proceedings was not pressed by the assessee and hence dismissed.6. Addition of Capital Grants & Subsidies and Consumers' Contribution for A.Y. 2011-12:The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO with similar observations as in the case for A.Y. 2008-09, directing the AO to verify and apply the actual rate of depreciation.7. Classification of interest income from other loans as Business Income vs. Income from Other Sources:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that loans to staff members cannot be treated as business expenses, and therefore, interest on these loans and advances cannot be treated as business income. The decisions cited by the assessee did not specifically support the claim.8. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of increase in power purchase cost:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had furnished necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the power purchase cost. The AO's failure to verify these documents was noted, and the detailed finding of the CIT(A) was upheld.9. Classification of income from miscellaneous receipts as Business Income vs. Income from Other Sources:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that miscellaneous receipts from customers and suppliers were received during the regular course of business and should be taxed as business income.10. Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty, noting that the final computation under Section 115JB of the Act and the disallowance of depreciation had no effect on income computed under Section 115JB. The penalty issue was also linked to the main quantum issue, which was remanded back to the AO.Conclusion:The appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2011-12 were partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeals filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2008-09 were dismissed. The Tribunal's detailed findings and directions provided a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised in the appeals.