Tribunal Decisions on Depreciation, Interest Rates, and Tax Disallowance

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee, directed the AO to recompute disallowance under Section 14A, accepted the interest rate for international transactions, excluded disallowance under Section 14A for computing book profit, and found penalty proceedings premature. It upheld the treatment of excise duty and sales tax incentives as revenue receipts, transfer pricing adjustments, depreciation on capitalized professional fees, non-deduction of TDS, FCCB premium depreciation, FCCB issue expenditure depreciation, and corporate guarantee fees. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals, directing the AO to recompute certain aspects in line with judicial precedents.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Additional Depreciation
2. Disallowance under Section 14A
3. Benchmarking of Interest Rate for International Transactions
4. Addition to Book Profit under Section 115JB
5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, 234D, and 220(2)
6. Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c)
7. Refund of Excise Duty
8. Sales Tax Incentive
9. Transfer Pricing Adjustments
10. Disallowance of Depreciation by Capitalization of Professional Fees
11. Non-deduction of TDS under Section 40(a)(ia)
12. Disallowance of Depreciation on FCCB Premium
13. FCCB Issue Expenditure
14. Corporate Guarantee Fees

Summary of Judgment:

1. Additional Depreciation:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section 32(1)(iia). The Tribunal noted that the additional depreciation is a one-time deduction allowed in the year of acquisition and installation of new plant and machinery, and not in subsequent years. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in ITA No. 5722 & 5370/Mum/2015 for A.Y. 2007-08.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) by considering only those investments which yield exempt income. It relied on the decisions in HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

3. Benchmarking of Interest Rate for International Transactions:
The Tribunal found that the assessee had advanced loans at 5.25% and directed the TPO to exclude the increased component of the interest rate. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the loans were advanced out of external commercial borrowings and the interest rate charged was reasonable.

4. Addition to Book Profit under Section 115JB:
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not liable to be added while computing book profit under Section 115JB. It relied on the decision in Acit Vs Vireet Investments and directed the AO to exclude the disallowance under Section 14A in computing the book profits.

5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, 234D, and 220(2):
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail but generally upheld the CIT(A)'s findings.

6. Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was premature.

7. Refund of Excise Duty:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the refund of excise duty as a revenue receipt and not a capital receipt. The Tribunal noted that the benefit was not for putting up the plant but for manufacturing prescribed goods.

8. Sales Tax Incentive:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the sales tax incentive as a revenue receipt. It relied on the decision in the case of Sahney Steel and other relevant case laws.

9. Transfer Pricing Adjustments:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on transfer pricing adjustments, including the benchmarking of interest rates and corporate guarantee fees. It found that the CIT(A) had appropriately considered the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Disallowance of Depreciation by Capitalization of Professional Fees:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on capitalized professional fees. It followed the decision in the case of Mark Auto Industries Ltd and SKOL Breweries Ltd.

11. Non-deduction of TDS under Section 40(a)(ia):
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on capitalized expenses where TDS was not deducted, following the decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

12. Disallowance of Depreciation on FCCB Premium:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the FCCB premium was offered to tax in subsequent years and allow the depreciation accordingly.

13. FCCB Issue Expenditure:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on FCCB issue expenditure, following the decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

14. Corporate Guarantee Fees:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the corporate guarantee fees charged at 1.5% was at arm's length. It relied on the decision in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd and Bharti Airtel Ltd.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes and dismissed the appeals of the revenue. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute certain disallowances and adjustments in accordance with the judicial precedents and the facts of the case.

---