2023 (4) TMI 851 - AT - Income Tax

Appellant's challenge on premature order not pressed; Tribunal reverses expenditure disallowance; TDS credit issue remanded. Correct computation ordered for excess interest.

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner if Income-Tax, Circle-2 (1) (1), Vadodara

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner if Income-Tax, Circle-2 (1) (1), Vadodara - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are:1. Timeliness of the order passed by CIT(A).2. Disallowance of expenditure on stores and spares.3. Non-grant/short grant of TDS credit.4. Charging of excess interest under sections 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act.Timeliness of CIT(A) order:The appeal pertained to the Assessment Year 2008-09 and challenged the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and CIT(A). The appellant contended that the CIT(A) order was passed prematurely before the expiry of the time granted for further submissions. However, the appellant decided not to press this ground during the proceedings.Disallowance of expenditure on stores and spares:The grounds of appeal focused on the disallowance of expenditure on stores and spares amounting to Rs.53,06,209. The appellant argued that such items should be considered as revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure, citing previous rulings in their favor. The Tribunal referred to a previous order in the appellant's own case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee, as the issue was found to be covered by previous decisions in favor of the appellant.Non-grant/short grant of TDS credit:The appellant raised concerns regarding the non-grant or short grant of TDS credit amounting to Rs.97,98,066. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the relevant documents and evidences to ensure the proper grant of TDS credit in accordance with the law. As a result, this ground raised by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.Charging of excess interest under sections 234C and 234D:The appellant also contested the charging of excess interest under sections 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that these grounds were consequential in nature and directed the Assessing Officer to compute the interest under the relevant sections in accordance with the law. Consequently, these grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.Separate Judgment:No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.