Department's Appeal Dismissed on Royalty & Suppression, Conversion Charges Allowed

The Department's appeal regarding the disallowance of royalty under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act was dismissed, as the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that royalty had been paid before the return filing date. The appeal on the suppression of sale value and under-invoicing was also dismissed, with the Tribunal finding the transactions at arm's length. However, the appeal on the disallowance of conversion charges under Section 37(1) was allowed, as the expenses were deemed revenue in nature. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of royalty under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
2. Suppression of sale value and under-invoicing.
3. Disallowance of conversion charges under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Royalty under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act

The Department was aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made by the AO through disallowance of royalty under Section 43B for Rs. 5,58,17,298/-. The AO found that the royalty debited to the P&L account had not been paid before the due date for filing the return and was shown as a liability. The CIT(A) observed that the royalty debited to the P&L account had been paid before filing the return, and thus, no disallowance could be made under Section 43B. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Kesoram Industries Ltd. that royalty is not tax, and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Kutch Minerals that royalty is not covered under Section 43B. Therefore, the Department's appeal on this issue was dismissed.

Issue 2: Suppression of Sale Value and Under-Invoicing

The AO alleged manipulation of sales prices to sister concerns, resulting in suppression of sale value amounting to Rs. 105,77,75,066/-. The CIT(A) found that the AO's comparison of sale prices was flawed, as the prices were for different stages (mine head vs. loaded on barges). The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the transactions were at arm's length and the associate concerns incurred costs for loading the ore. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. that only the actual price received, not the market price, should be considered for taxation. Consequently, the Department's appeal on this issue was dismissed.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Conversion Charges under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act

The assessee had paid conversion charges for using agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. The AO disallowed these charges, considering them as payments for violating land use laws. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. However, the Tribunal found that the conversion was done as per a government policy and did not result in acquiring any capital asset. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Bikaner Gypsums Ltd., the Tribunal held that the expenses were for removing restrictions and were on revenue account. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the assessee's appeal.

Conclusion:

In the combined result, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The order was pronounced in open Court on 21st September, 2023.

---