Appeal partly allowed in favor of assessee on disallowances. Ground on education cess dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by deleting the disallowances related to amortization of premium on derivative on long-term borrowings, reimbursement of air-tickets and hotel bookings, and the difference in rent cost for employee accommodation. The additional ground on payment made towards education cess and higher education cess was dismissed as it was not pressed by the assessee. The order was pronounced on 11th January 2023.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance of amortization of premium on derivative on long-term borrowings.
2. Disallowance under Section 40(i)(a) of the Income-Tax Act.
3. Disallowance of difference in rent cost incurred for providing accommodation to employees and the respective perquisite value.
4. Consequential and general grounds.
5. Additional ground on payment made towards education cess and higher education cess.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Amortization of Premium on Derivative on Long-term Borrowings:

The assessee, a corporate entity engaged in the assembly of automotive components, filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 73,20,89,000 for the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,63,36,331 claimed as amortization of premium on derivative on long-term borrowings. The AO found that the assessee had availed two long-term External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) from Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (MELCO) and entered into currency swap contracts with Bank of Tokyo, Mitsubishi UFJ (BTMU) to hedge the foreign currency exposure. The AO held that the premium paid to BTMU was not covered under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and considered it a speculative transaction under Section 43(5) of the Act.

The Tribunal disagreed with the AO, stating that the currency swap contracts were to hedge the fluctuation in foreign currency rates and protect the assessee from the risk of paying more interest due to exchange rate fluctuations. The Tribunal held that the transactions were not speculative and the deduction claimed was allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Additionally, even if the premium could not be termed as interest, it was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and thus allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act. The disallowance was deleted.

2. Disallowance under Section 40(i)(a) of the Income-Tax Act:

The AO noticed that the assessee had paid Rs. 2,51,66,612 to Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan towards installation charges but had not deducted tax on Rs. 86,27,286, claimed as reimbursement of air-tickets and hotel bookings. The AO disallowed the amount, treating it as fee for technical services (FTS).

The Tribunal observed that the invoices for air-tickets and hotel bills were separate and did not include any amount for installation services, indicating they were reimbursements without profit elements. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not required to withhold tax under Section 195 on such reimbursements. Moreover, the amount was capitalized and not claimed as revenue expenditure, making Section 40(a)(i) inapplicable. The disallowance was deleted.

3. Disallowance of Difference in Rent Cost:

The AO disallowed Rs. 6,90,154, the difference between the rent paid by the assessee for employee accommodation and the perquisite value taxed in the hands of the employees, considering it a personal obligation of the employees.

The Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified, stating that the perquisite value taxed in the hands of employees is determined by prescribed rules and does not reflect the actual cost incurred by the assessee. The expenditure incurred for employee welfare, considering commercial expediency, is allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act. The disallowance was deleted.

4. Consequential and General Grounds:

Ground no. 6 was consequential, and ground no. 7 was general and dismissed.

5. Additional Ground on Payment Made Towards Education Cess and Higher Education Cess:

The additional ground on the issue of deduction on payment made towards education cess and higher education cess was not pressed by the assessee during the hearing and was dismissed.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal deleting the disallowances related to amortization of premium on derivative on long-term borrowings, reimbursement of air-tickets and hotel bookings, and the difference in rent cost for employee accommodation. The additional ground on education cess was dismissed as not pressed. The order was pronounced on 11th January 2023.

---