2023 (1) TMI 1482 - AT - Income Tax

Sugar company wins partial relief on stock valuation and government incentives treated as capital receipts

ITAT Mumbai allowed assessee's appeal partially in a sugar industry case. The tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions on closing stock valuation of ... Addition on account of in valuation of closing stock of sugarcane - as per AO closing stock of sugarcane was shown at Rs. 32531 Mitric tons however the average rate of purchases of sugarcane was Rs. 1385 per metric ton - CIT(A) has deleted the addition holding that stock of sugarcane was valued at cost or net realizable value whichever was lower and such valuation had been accepted in the earlier years - HELD THAT:- As valuation has been adopted consistently in the past by the assessee as well as in the subsequent years which has been accepted by the department, and the A.O has not brought any material on record in contrary to the claim of the assessee therefore, we don’t find any error in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. Valuation of closing stock of Alcohol and Molasses - AO noticed that valuation of closing stock of by products were less than the value of opening stock and was of the view that assessee has completely failed to bring out the correct valuation of closing stock of these by-products and considered that valuation at opening stock was more reasonable therefore valued the such closing stock at the rate of opening stock - CIT(A) has deleted the addition following the policy of valuation of by product and finished product the assessee company has been valuing closing stock of molasses and alcohol every year and no addition has been made on this account in the earlier years - HELD THAT:- It is observed that in the case of the assessee stock of molasses has been valued at estimated net realizable value/negotiable price, and stock of alcohol has been valued at lower of cost or net realizable value. The aforesaid policy has been adopted consistently by the assessee and accepted by the department in the past years as well as in the subsequent years. A.O has not brought on record any contrary materials to disprove the claim of the assessee . Looking to the above facts and findings we don’t find any reason to interfere in the decision of ld. CIT(A), therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. Disallowance u/s 14A in respect of expenditure attributable to earning exempt income - HELD THAT:- Considering finding and non application of Rule 8D to the year under consideration we direct the A.O to restrict the disallowance to the extent of 2% of the exempt income shown by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2007-08, therefore, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Considering the incentive in the form of reimbursement/exemption and exemption from collection and deposit amount as revenue receipts and further incentive received towards investment in plant and machinery being capital receipt ought not to be reduced from cost of asset - HELD THAT:- In the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS GENUS ELECTROTECH LIMITED [2016 (5) TMI 1136 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein held that sale tax and excise duty subsidy received by the assessee for purpose of industrialization was capital receipt. In the case of PCIT Vs. Capgemini India (P) Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 306 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that grant received by assessee from state govt. in shape of allotment of land for purpose of granting employment for over 3000 people, was to regarded as capital receipts. Counsel has also furnished similar judicial pronouncements of ITAT Benches. The assessee has also demonstrated that subsidy was granted for setting up sugar industry in general and not for acquisition of any asset, therefore, same also not to be reduced from the cost of asset. The assessee has demonstrated from the material as referred above and furnished before the lower authorities that various incentives were granted under the New Sugar Industry Promotion Policy 2004 for the purpose of development and growth of sugar industry in the state and same has to be considered as capital in nature. Therefore, we find the decision of ld. CIT(A) is not justified therefore the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Claim of deduction of expenditure u/s 115JB in respect of reserve for construction of molasses storage tanks - HELD THAT:- New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. [2002 (2) TMI 103 - SC ORDER] held that amount set apart towards molasses storage reserve fund is to be excluded from assessee’s total income. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Somaiya Organo & Chemical Ltd. [2016 (10) TMI 172 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that amount transferred out of profit of loss account to storage fund for molasses and alcohol account to meet the statutory requirement was an admissible deduction in working out business income Decision of ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the claim of the assessee in respect of amount diverted to the statutory reserve for construction of molasses is not justified, therefore, we direct the AO to exclude the aforesaid amount while computing book profit u/s 115JB. Deduction in respect of dividend income in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB - It is noticed that this matter was neither brought to the knowledge of the AO nor before the CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings, therefore, for deciding this issue on merit we restore this matter to the file of the AO for deciding after verification of the claim of the assessee in accordance with provision of Sec. 115JB as referred supra. Therefore this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Claim of excluding notional gain on foreign exchange fluctuation on receipt of external commercial borrowings (ECB) & foreign currency convertible bonds (FCCB) - D.R has contended that no such issue has been brought before the A.O and ld. CIT(A) during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings and the claim required verification - HELD THAT:- As we restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer for deciding the same after verification/examination of relevant material after considering the decision of Sutlaj Cotton Company Ltd. [1978 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] Deduction in respect of amount transferred to Debenture Redemption Reserve in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB - D.R submitted that neither this issue has been raised before the A.O nor before the ld. CIT(A) and the same is required to be verified from the relevant material - HELD THAT:- In the light of the above facts we restore this issue to the file of the A.O for deciding after examination and verification of the material in accordance with provision of Sec. 115JB of the Act after taking into consideration the various judicial pronouncements referred by the ld. Counsel placed in the paper book. MAT computation on Incentive received under the new sugar industry promotion policy - HELD THAT:- Incentive received under the New Sugar Promotion Policy 2004 of Uttar Pradesh Government are of the nature of capital receipt, therefore, we direct the assessing officer to reduce the same while computing the book profit u/s 115JB 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal in these cross appeals for the assessment year 2007-08 include:Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in making additions on account of alleged undervaluation of closing stock of sugarcane and by-products (alcohol and molasses) in the absence of adequate evidence from the assessee.Whether the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act in respect of expenditure attributable to earning exempt income was correctly computed by applying Rule 8D or an alternative reasonable method.The nature of incentives and subsidies received under the New Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 by the assessee-whether such receipts are capital or revenue in nature and the consequent tax treatment, including whether such incentives should be reduced from the cost of assets or treated as revenue receipts.Whether the claim for deduction of reserves for construction of molasses storage tanks is allowable under Section 115JB while computing book profits.The treatment of dividend income in the computation of book profit under Section 115JB.Whether notional gains on foreign exchange fluctuations on external commercial borrowings (ECB) and foreign currency convertible bonds (FCCB) should be excluded from total income.The allowability of deduction in respect of amount transferred to Debenture Redemption Reserve in computing book profit under Section 115JB.Other procedural and evidentiary issues including short grant of TDS credit.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISUndervaluation of Closing Stock of Sugarcane and By-products (Alcohol & Molasses)Legal Framework and Precedents: The valuation of closing stock is governed by the principles of cost or net realizable value, whichever is lower, as per accounting standards and tax laws. Consistent past practice and acceptance by the department are relevant factors.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 1,03,43,558/- and Rs. 40,46,14,914/- on sugarcane and by-products respectively, alleging undervaluation based on average purchase rates and opening stock values. The AO did not accept the assessee's valuation methods or explanations.The CIT(A) deleted these additions, holding that the assessee had consistently valued the stocks at cost or net realizable value, a method accepted by the department in preceding and subsequent years. The Tribunal affirmed this view, noting absence of any contrary material from the AO to disprove the valuation method. The AO's deviation from the established valuation method without cogent reasons was not justified.Key Evidence and Findings: Consistent valuation practice by the assessee from AY 2005-06 to AY 2009-10, accepted by the department; lack of contradictory evidence from AO; policy of valuing molasses and alcohol at estimated net realizable value or lower of cost or net realizable value.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that valuation should be consistent and accepted unless disproved by cogent evidence, and found no error in deleting the AO's additions.Competing Arguments: Revenue relied on average purchase price and opening stock values; assessee relied on consistent valuation and net realizable value. The Tribunal favored the assessee's approach.Conclusion: Additions on undervaluation of closing stock of sugarcane and by-products were rightly deleted; revenue's appeal on these grounds dismissed.Disallowance under Section 14A for Expenditure Attributable to Exempt IncomeLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 14A read with Rule 8D governs disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income. However, Rule 8D was not applicable for AY 2007-08. Judicial precedents (Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and others) emphasize application of a reasonable method for disallowance.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO disallowed Rs. 68,74,035/- under Rule 8D. The CIT(A) directed AO to apply a reasonable apportionment method, restricting disallowance to 2% of exempt income, relying on judicial precedents restricting disallowance to a reasonable proportion.Key Evidence and Findings: Dividend income was Rs. 26,91,477/-, with no specific expenditure incurred to earn exempt income; assessee had estimated 1% expenditure on its own.Application of Law to Facts: Since Rule 8D was not applicable, disallowance was restricted to 2% of exempt income, following judicial guidance.Competing Arguments: AO insisted on Rule 8D application; assessee argued no direct expenditure and Rule 8D inapplicability. Tribunal agreed with assessee.Conclusion: Disallowance under Section 14A restricted to 2% of exempt income; assessee's appeal partly allowed.Nature and Tax Treatment of Incentives under New Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004Legal Framework and Precedents: The character of subsidies/incentives-capital or revenue-is determined by the purpose for which they are granted (purpose test). Supreme Court and High Court decisions (Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., CIT vs. Ponni Sugar & Chemical Ltd., Everest Industries Ltd., CIT vs. Shri Balaji Alloys & Others, CIT Kolhapur vs. Chaphlekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd., and others) provide guiding principles.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO treated incentives as revenue receipts since they were received after commencement of production and could be used at the assessee's discretion, not mandatorily for asset acquisition or loan repayment.The CIT(A) upheld AO's view. However, the Tribunal examined the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 in detail, noting its objective to attract private investment, augment industrial development, and provide special economic concessions to new sugar mills for a defined period.The Tribunal found the incentives were linked to capital investment and industrial development, and judicial precedents supported capital nature classification of such subsidies. The incentives were not for carrying on day-to-day business but to encourage capital formation and industrial growth.Key Evidence and Findings: Detailed policy documents, eligibility certificates, classification of incentives, and judicial precedents supporting capital receipt characterization.Application of Law to Facts: Applying the purpose test and relevant precedents, the Tribunal held incentives under the policy are capital receipts, not taxable as revenue income, and should not be reduced from asset cost for depreciation purposes.Competing Arguments: Revenue argued incentives were revenue receipts due to timing and unrestricted use; assessee relied on policy objectives and judicial precedents. Tribunal sided with the assessee.Conclusion: Incentives under the New Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 are capital receipts; AO and CIT(A) orders reversed on this issue; ground of appeal of the assessee allowed.Claim of Deduction for Reserve for Construction of Molasses Storage Tanks under Section 115JBLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 115JB requires computation of book profit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). Judicial decisions (CIT vs. New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., Somaiya Organo & Chemical Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Madurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., CIT vs. Kothari Sugar & Chemical Ltd., CIT vs. Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.) affirm allowability of statutory reserves for molasses storage as deductible expenses.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) had dismissed the claim relying on a Supreme Court decision unrelated to Section 115JB. The Tribunal examined the precedents and held that expenditure allowed under normal provisions should be allowed while computing book profit under Section 115JB.Key Evidence and Findings: Statutory requirement and consistent judicial recognition of such reserves as deductible expenses.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal directed AO to exclude the amount transferred to statutory reserve for molasses storage tanks while computing book profit.Competing Arguments: Assessee relied on statutory reserves and judicial precedents; revenue relied on CIT(A) order. Tribunal agreed with assessee.Conclusion: Claim for deduction of reserve for molasses storage tanks allowed for book profit computation under Section 115JB.Treatment of Dividend Income in Computation of Book Profit under Section 115JBLegal Framework: Section 10(34) exempts dividend income from domestic companies from tax. Explanation (1)(ii) to Section 115JB excludes such exempt income from book profit.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The issue was not raised before AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal restored the matter to AO for verification and decision in accordance with law.Conclusion: Ground allowed for statistical purposes; AO to decide after verification.Notional Gain on Foreign Exchange Fluctuation on ECB and FCCBLegal Framework and Precedents: Supreme Court decision in Sutlej Cotton Company Ltd. vs. CIT provides guidance on treatment of foreign exchange gains.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The issue was not examined by AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal restored the matter to AO for consideration after verification.Conclusion: Ground allowed for statistical purposes; AO to decide after examination.Deduction for Amount Transferred to Debenture Redemption Reserve under Section 115JBLegal Framework and Precedents: Judicial pronouncements (CIT vs. Raymond Ltd., National Rayon Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT, and others) hold that debenture redemption reserve is a provision for an ascertained liability and should not be added back in book profit computation.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The issue was not raised before AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal restored the matter to AO for decision after verification of relevant material considering judicial precedents.Conclusion: Ground allowed for statistical purposes; AO to decide after verification.Short Grant of TDS CreditThe assessee did not press this ground; it was dismissed accordingly.Reduction of Incentive Received under the New Sugar Industry Promotion Policy from Book Profit under Section 115JBSince the Tribunal held the incentives to be capital receipts, it directed AO to reduce such incentives while computing book profit under Section 115JB, relying on judicial precedents including New Horizon Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., Ambur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd., Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., and Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The character of subsidy in the hands of the recipient whether revenue or the capital, is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given.''The test is that the character of receipt in the hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. The point of time at which the subsidy is paid is not relevant. The form of subsidy is immaterial.''Expenditure allowable under normal provision of the Act ought to be allowed for the purpose of computation of book profit under Section 115JB.''Valuation of closing stock consistently adopted and accepted by the department cannot be disturbed without cogent contrary evidence.''Disallowance under Section 14A should be computed by a reasonable method where Rule 8D is not applicable, and restricted to a reasonable proportion of exempt income.'Final determinations:Additions on undervaluation of closing stock of sugarcane and by-products were deleted.Disallowance under Section 14A restricted to 2% of exempt income.Incentives under the New Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 are capital receipts and not taxable as revenue income; they are to be reduced from book profit under Section 115JB.Deduction for statutory reserve for molasses storage tanks allowed in book profit computation.Dividend income exemption under Section 10(34) to be verified and decided by AO.Issues relating to foreign exchange gain and debenture redemption reserve restored to AO for verification and decision.Short grant of TDS credit not pressed and dismissed.