2023 (10) TMI 1133 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds most tax adjustments, remands TDS credit verification, confirms MAT computation under section 115JB

Malco Energy Limited Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 10 (2) (2), Mumbai

Malco Energy Limited Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 10 (2) (2), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Re-working Book-Profit under section 115JB by adding Rs. 200 crores.2. Treatment of foreclosure costs.3. Addition of share issue expenses as capital expenditure.4. Adjustment made by the TPO under section 92CA(3).5. Short grant of TDS.6. Brought forward loss.Summary:Re-working Book-Profit under section 115JB by adding Rs. 200 crores:The Lower Authorities erred in making an addition of Rs. 200 crores on account of 'foreclosure on account of early redemption of preference shares' to the book-profit of the Appellant and thereby re-computing the book profit at Rs. 155,43,34,549/-. The Tribunal upheld the AO's adjustment, stating that the foreclosure cost on account of early redemption of preference shares is capital expenditure and cannot be deducted in computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act.Treatment of foreclosure costs:The Lower Authorities erred in disregarding that foreclosure costs on account of early redemption of preference shares are akin to pre-payment charges levied by banks/financial institutions/lenders on settlement of loans/borrowings. The Tribunal found that the foreclosure cost should be treated as a capital expenditure and not as a revenue expenditure, thus supporting the AO's adjustment.Addition of share issue expenses as capital expenditure:The Lower Authorities erred in holding that share issue expenses incurred towards capital reduction, issue of equity shares, and foreclosure on account of early redemption of preference shares was capital in nature, rather than revenue in nature and liable to be allowed as an expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the AO's disallowance of Rs. 25 lakhs as capital expenditure, relying on the assessee's own classification in Form No. 3CD.Adjustment made by the TPO under section 92CA(3):The Lower Authorities erred in making an addition of Rs. 18,67,424/- on account of sale of fuel stock and an addition of Rs. 1,17,01,150/- on account of purchase of fuel stock by arbitrarily rejecting the 'Other Method' applied as Most Appropriate Method ('MAM') as per Rule 10AB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'). The Tribunal upheld the TPO's use of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and the adjustments made based on TIPS database.Short grant of TDS:The AO erred in granting short-credit of Tax Deducted at Source ('TDS') to the Appellant, i.e., TDS claimed in computation of total income at Rs. 30,30,259/-, whereas the credit granted by the AO is Rs. 29,29,411/- resulting in short-grant of TDS of Rs. 1,00,848/-. The Tribunal set aside this issue to the AO for verification and granting the correct credit if found in accordance with the law.Brought forward loss:The Lower Authorities erred in not reducing lower of brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation while computing book-profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the AO's computation, stating that the lower of unabsorbed business loss or unabsorbed depreciation is required to be reduced from the book profit, which in this case was nil.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions for the AO to verify the short-credit of TDS and the computation of brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Other grounds of appeal were dismissed, upholding the AO's adjustments and disallowances.