ITAT deletes unverified commission additions, remands bogus purchases, disallows prior period expenses, applies section 14A

The ITAT Mumbai ruled on multiple issues for the assessee. The tribunal deleted additions for unverified commission expenses, finding the assessee successfully rebutted the presumption from statements under section 132(4) by providing supporting evidence. For bogus purchases, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination after VAT authorities accepted revised returns. Prior period expenses were disallowed as they should have been provided for under mercantile accounting. The tribunal directed 15% disallowance of exempt income under section 14A instead of applying Rule 8D. For MAT computation, provision for bad debts was held not to be added to book profit. Several other issues including section 10B deduction, mark-to-market losses, section 35(2AB) deduction, and ESOP expenses were remanded to the AO for factual verification and proper examination.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of unverified expenses.
2. Disallowance of bogus purchases.
3. Deduction of prior period expenses.
4. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.
5. Deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 115JB.
6. Disallowance of commission expenses.
7. Deduction u/s 10B of the Act.
8. Disallowance of mark to market loss.
9. Deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act.
10. Deduction of ESOP expenses.

Summary:

1. Disallowance of Unverified Expenses:
The assessee admitted to booking bogus commission expenses of Rs. 4,76,34,543/- in AY 2009-10. However, only Rs. 4,27,45,491/- was admitted in the return filed u/s 153A. The AO added Rs. 39,02,582/- to the total income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the explanation by the assessee regarding the nature of expenses was valid and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 39,02,582/-.

2. Disallowance of Bogus Purchases:
The assessee admitted to accounting for bogus purchases of Rs. 10,00,88,095/-. The AO disallowed Rs. 7,90,83,655/-, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had revised VAT returns and provided additional evidence. The issue was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

3. Deduction of Prior Period Expenses:
The assessee claimed Rs. 4,91,608/- as prior period expenses. The AO rejected the claim, citing the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the rejection, stating that the expenses did not relate to the year under consideration.

4. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act:
The assessee disallowed Rs. 89.79 lakhs u/s 14A but later claimed no expenditure was incurred. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the amount of exempt income. The Tribunal directed the AO to disallow 15% of the exempt income.

5. Deduction of Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts u/s 115JB:
The assessee added Rs. 23.50 million to the net profit while computing book profit u/s 115JB. The Tribunal held that if the provision is reduced from the sundry debtors balance, it would not be hit by clause (i) of Explanation 1 to sec. 115JB and directed the AO not to add the provision to the net profit.

6. Disallowance of Commission Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 152.26 lakhs paid to M/s Tuticorin Trexim P Ltd. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 143.50 lakhs. The Tribunal held that the disallowance should be restricted to Rs. 143.50 lakhs and allowed the assessee to seek exclusion of the amount in AY 2010-11.

7. Deduction u/s 10B of the Act:
The assessee claimed that the deduction u/s 10B should be computed on commercial profits. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for examination.

8. Disallowance of Mark to Market Loss:
The AO disallowed Rs. 3.39 crores as notional loss. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the decision of the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for verification of the nature of transactions.

9. Deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act:
The AO rejected the claim for weighted deduction on expenses incurred outside the in-house facility. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction. The Tribunal held that expenses on clinical trials outside the facility are eligible for deduction and remanded the issue to the AO for verification.

10. Deduction of ESOP Expenses:
The AO rejected the claim for ESOP expenses. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, following the decision in Biocon Ltd. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify the factual aspects.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal provided detailed directions for each issue, remanding several issues back to the AO for fresh examination and verification. The appeals were partly allowed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was allowed.

---