ITAT allows CSR deduction under section 80G, restricts bogus purchase addition to 2%, permits forex losses

ITAT Mumbai ruled on multiple issues in assessee's favor. For bogus purchases, addition restricted to 2% following precedent from assessee's own case. CSR expenses claimed under section 80G were allowed as deduction, upholding CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance. Mark-to-market forex losses were held allowable as business losses, consistent with assessee's regular export business and accounting method. However, disallowance under section 14A was partially upheld, with AO directed to consider only investments that actually earned exempt income when applying Rule 8D calculations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bogus Purchases
2. Deduction under Section 80G
3. Mark to Market Losses
4. Disallowance of Education Cess and Employees Contribution to Provident Fund
5. Disallowance under Section 14A

Summary:

1. Bogus Purchases:
The revenue challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the Gross Profit (G.P.) basis rather than the entire purchases, citing the Supreme Court's decision in N.K. Proteins which held that the entire transaction should be considered bogus if found so. The assessee argued that the purchases were genuine and supported by evidence, and that the material was received and utilized in manufacturing. The Tribunal noted that in previous years, a similar issue was resolved by restricting the addition to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases for the year under consideration.

2. Deduction under Section 80G:
The revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under Section 80G for CSR expenditures. The assessee argued that the CSR expenditures were donations to eligible institutions under Section 80G. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, noting that various courts have held that donations made to institutions registered under Section 80G are eligible for deduction, even if they are CSR expenditures.

3. Mark to Market Losses:
The revenue argued that the mark to market losses should not be allowed as they are notional and cited CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2010. The assessee contended that the losses were real and incurred in the course of business, supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal, following its previous decision in the assessee's own case, held that the mark to market losses were allowable as they were incurred in the regular course of business and consistently accounted for.

4. Disallowance of Education Cess and Employees Contribution to Provident Fund:
The assessee did not press these grounds during the hearing, and thus, they were dismissed as not pressed.

5. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The Assessing Officer disallowed 1% of the average value of investments under Section 14A, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee argued that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt income and that the Assessing Officer did not record any satisfaction. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider only those investments which actually earned exempt income and to disallow expenses accordingly under Section 14A.

Conclusion:
The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed specific adjustments and upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decisions on key issues, ensuring consistency with previous rulings and relevant legal precedents.

---