2007 (10) TMI 348 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Appeals Dismissed, Assessee's Claims Partly Allowed

Ashok Leyland Finance Limited. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Company Circle 1(1).

The revenue's appeals challenging various tax issues were dismissed, including the method of accounting finance charges, enhanced depreciation on leased ... Actual Cost Issues Involved:1. Method of accounting of finance charges (EMI vs. CRM).2. Enhanced depreciation on leased assets.3. Estimated expenditure disallowed in earning income exempted under section 10(33).4. Disallowance of depreciation on assets leased to M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast, Mumbai.5. Disallowance of depreciation on assets leased to M/s. Rajinder Pipes Ltd.6. Disallowance of provision for Non-Performing Assets.7. Disallowance of lease equalization charges.8. Addition of notional interest on deemed loan transactions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Method of Accounting of Finance Charges:The revenue contended that the assessee should use the Capital Recovery Method (CRM) instead of the Equated Monthly Instalment (EMI) method for accounting finance charges. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision favoring the assessee, citing previous Tribunal orders and the lack of any legal disturbance to those findings. The revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.2. Enhanced Depreciation on Leased Assets:The revenue challenged the allowance of enhanced depreciation on leased assets. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd., which supports higher depreciation rates for commercial vehicles leased out. This ground was decided against the revenue.3. Estimated Expenditure Disallowed in Earning Income Exempted Under Section 10(33):The revenue disputed the CIT(A)'s directive to allow a reasonable expenditure for earning exempt income. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s direction to treat 2% of the total exempt income as reasonable expenditure, aligning with the ITAT decision in Asstt. CIT v. Teeaye Investment Ltd. This ground was dismissed.4. Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Leased to M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast, Mumbai:The assessee contested the disallowance of depreciation based on the Valuation Officer's report. The Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim, noting that the assessee had made the equipment available to the lessee and referencing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Annamalai Finance Ltd. This ground was allowed in favor of the assessee.5. Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Leased to M/s. Rajinder Pipes Ltd.:The assessee argued that it had provided sufficient evidence of the leased assets' existence. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had ignored this evidence and allowed the depreciation claim, citing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Annamalai Finance Ltd. This ground was allowed in favor of the assessee.6. Disallowance of Provision for Non-Performing Assets:The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of provisions for Non-Performing Assets, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in T.N Power Finance & Infrastructure Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Joint CIT. The Tribunal agreed, noting that RBI guidelines could not override the Income-tax Act's provisions. This ground was dismissed.7. Disallowance of Lease Equalization Charges:The CIT(A) disallowed lease equalization charges, following his previous order for the assessment year 1996-97. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, referencing its earlier ruling against the assessee for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98. This ground was dismissed.8. Addition of Notional Interest on Deemed Loan Transactions:The assessee contended that the CIT(A) should have recognized the lease transactions with M/s. Rajinder Pipes Ltd. and M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast as genuine and deleted the notional interest additions. The Tribunal, following its decision in the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 1996-97, accepted the genuineness of the transactions and deleted the additions. This ground was allowed in favor of the assessee.Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges:In ITA No. 1104/Mds./2005, there was a disagreement between the Judicial Member and the Accountant Member regarding the depreciation on assets leased to M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast and M/s. Rajinder Pipes Ltd. The Third Member, M.K. Chaturvedi, Vice-President, concurred with the Judicial Member on the depreciation for M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast but agreed with the Accountant Member to set aside the issue for M/s. Rajinder Pipes Ltd. for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.Conclusion:- Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 1218 to 1220/Mds./2005 were dismissed.- Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1104/Mds./05 was partly allowed.- Assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 1105 and 1106/Mds./05 were partly allowed.