2024 (11) TMI 1295 - AT - Income Tax

SEZ unit profits must be computed before setting off brought forward losses under Section 10AA deduction

Media. Net Software Services India P. Ltd., Versus DCIT-10 (2 (2) Mumbai

Media. Net Software Services India P. Ltd., Versus DCIT-10 (2 (2) Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of additions to the returned income.2. Denial of deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Disallowance of interest on delayed payment of TDS under Section 37 of the Act.4. Restriction on the set-off of business loss.5. Non-grant of consequential depreciation on leasehold improvements.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Confirmation of Additions to the Returned Income:The assessee contested the appellate order confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) amounting to INR 3,82,04,3944 to the returned income. The tribunal noted that no specific arguments were advanced in relation to this ground, and consequently, it was dismissed as being general in nature.2. Denial of Deduction under Section 10AA:The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 10AA amounting to INR 9,033,777. The AO disallowed this deduction on the basis that the brought forward business loss of INR 15,956,392 should have been set off against the profits before computing the deduction. The appellate authority upheld this view, citing decisions from the Karnataka and Kerala High Courts, which emphasized that business profits should be computed after setting off unabsorbed depreciation. However, the tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., which clarified that the deduction under Section 10A (similar to 10AA) should be computed before setting off brought forward losses. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 10AA as claimed by the assessee.3. Disallowance of Interest on Delayed Payment of TDS:The assessee incurred interest of INR 1,63,711 on the delayed payment of TDS. The AO disallowed this interest under Section 37, considering it to be penal in nature. The tribunal upheld this disallowance, referencing the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd., which held that such interest does not qualify as a business expense and is not deductible under Section 37(1). The tribunal concluded that this interest is not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, thus dismissing this ground of appeal.4. Restriction on the Set-off of Business Loss:The assessee claimed a set-off of business losses amounting to INR 44,963,298, but the AO restricted it to INR 15,956,392 based on past records. The tribunal restored this issue to the AO for verification of the available set-off of brought forward business losses, directing the AO to determine the correct amount in accordance with the law. This ground was allowed with the aforementioned direction.5. Non-grant of Consequential Depreciation on Leasehold Improvements:The assessee argued that the expenditure on leasehold improvements during AY 2013-14 should be treated as revenue expenditure and not capital in nature. The AO had treated the entire expenditure as capital, allowing depreciation at 5%. The tribunal noted that this issue pertains to AY 2013-14 and directed the AO to consider the claim if it is decided in favor of the assessee by the appellate authority. This ground was allowed with the given direction.In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific directions provided for certain grounds. The order was pronounced in the open court on 08/10/2024.