Appellant wins on double disallowance issue as borrowed capital interest already disallowed under section 36(1)(iii)

ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant regarding multiple disallowances. The tribunal found that the appellant had already disallowed interest on borrowed capital under section 36(1)(iii) in its return of income and computation of income, making the AO's addition a double disallowance, which was deleted. Similarly, disallowances for amortization of premium on leasehold land were deleted as the company had already disallowed these amounts. For MAT computation under section 115JB, the matter was remitted to the AO with directions to verify the return of income and delete any additions already disallowed by the appellant itself.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in the appeals relate to:

• Whether the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Central Processing Centre (CPC) under sections 143(1) and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of various expenses and adjustments, constitute double disallowances when these amounts were already disallowed by the appellant in the Return of Income (ROI) and accompanying Computation of Income;
• Whether the amortization of premium paid for leasehold land is rightly disallowed by the AO and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)];
• Whether the deferred tax credited to the profit and loss account should be reduced from book profit while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act;
• Whether the principle of natural justice was violated by the CIT(A) in not granting an opportunity of hearing via virtual conference despite the appellant's specific request;
• Whether the doctrine of merger applies, i.e., whether the intimation under section 143(1) merges with the assessment order under section 143(3), thereby rendering appeals against the former infructuous;
• Whether the disallowance of interest relating to capital work in progress for plant expansion under section 36 is justified;
• Whether disallowance of donation, CSR expenditure, and penal interest on TDS is justified;
• Whether the excess levy of interest under section 234C is justified;
• Whether the disallowance of depreciation on additions to fixed assets is justified.

Of these, only the issues concerning double disallowance of ICDS adjustments (forex loss on ECB and creditors, interest on capital work in progress), amortization of premium on leasehold land, and deferred tax adjustment under section 115JB were pressed and adjudicated by the Tribunal. Other grounds were either not pressed or dismissed without merit.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

a) Double Disallowance of ICDS Adjustments (Forex Loss on ECB and Creditors, Interest on Capital Work in Progress)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Income Tax Act permits disallowance of expenses under sections 36 and 37 if such expenses are not allowable or are inconsistent with accounting standards or ICDS (Income Computation and Disclosure Standards). However, double disallowance of the same expense is impermissible. The principle of consistency and avoidance of double taxation is well recognized.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellant submitted that the amounts disallowed by the AO under sections 36 and 37 were already disallowed by the appellant itself in the ROI and the Computation of Income filed with the Department. The Tribunal examined the documents submitted, including the Computation of Income and ROI, and found that the appellant had indeed disallowed these amounts voluntarily.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant produced copies of the Computation of Income and ROI showing the disallowance of forex loss on ECB and creditors amounting to INR 8,44,04,626, and interest relating to capital work in progress amounting to INR 14,22,381.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the appellant had already disallowed these amounts, the additions made by the AO and CPC amounted to double disallowance, which is contrary to the principles of tax computation.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not demonstrate that these amounts were not disallowed in the ROI or that the disallowance by the appellant was not genuine. The Tribunal relied on the appellant's submissions and documentary evidence.

Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the AO to delete these additions after verifying the appellant's ROI and Computation of Income, since the disallowances were already accounted for by the appellant.

b) Amortization of Premium Paid for Leasehold Land

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Amortization of premium paid for acquiring leasehold rights is generally allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, provided it is claimed properly and not disallowed under any specific provisions.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellant contended that the amortization amount of INR 20,39,318 was also disallowed by the appellant itself and disclosed in clause 21(a) of Form 3CD filed with the Department, indicating the appellant's acknowledgment of the disallowance.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant submitted Form 3CD and the ROI showing the disallowance of this amortization amount.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the appellant had already disallowed this amount in its return, the AO's addition of the same amount was a double disallowance and hence unjustified.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not provide evidence to counter the appellant's claim that this amount was already disallowed.

Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance of amortization of premium paid for leasehold land after verification by the AO.

c) Deferred Tax Adjustment in Computation of Book Profit under Section 115JB

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act prescribes the computation of book profit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes. Explanation (1)(viii) to section 115JB, amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2008, requires that any amount of deferred tax credited to the profit and loss account be reduced from the book profit.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellant submitted that the deferred tax credit of INR 5,45,86,490 was credited to the profit and loss account, but the AO and CIT(A) failed to reduce this amount while computing book profit under section 115JB. The appellant argued that the current tax of the same amount was debited to the profit and loss account, and thus, the net effect should be considered.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant produced the profit and loss account and computation of book profit documents demonstrating the deferred tax credit and current tax debit entries.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that the relevant amendment mandates reduction of deferred tax credited to profit and loss from book profit. However, neither the AO nor CIT(A) verified these entries in the accounts. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify these facts and adjust the book profit accordingly.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not dispute the presence of deferred tax credit in the profit and loss account but failed to verify or consider it in the computation of book profit.

Conclusions: The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for verification and consequential adjustment of book profit under section 115JB in accordance with the law.

d) Other Issues Not Pressed or Adjudicated

Grounds relating to dismissal of appeal on the doctrine of merger, violation of natural justice due to non-grant of opportunity of hearing by virtual conference, disallowance of depreciation on additions to fixed assets, excess levy of interest under section 234C, and disallowance of donation, CSR expenditure, and penal interest on TDS were not pressed by the appellant or not adjudicated by the Tribunal, and hence remain unaddressed.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal established the following core principles and made key determinations:

• Double Disallowance Prohibited: "When the appellant has already disallowed the said amount, adding to the 'Taxable Income' amounts to double disallowance." The Tribunal emphasized that disallowances already accounted for in the ROI and Computation of Income cannot be added again by the AO or CPC.
• Verification Mandated: The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the appellant's ROI and Computation of Income before making any additions, stating: "The Ld. AO is directed to go through the copy of Return of Income and 'Computation of Income' and if the appellant itself had disallowed them, then all the additions made by Department should be deleted."
• Deferred Tax Adjustment under Section 115JB: The Tribunal noted the retrospective amendment by Finance Act, 2008, and held that "the amount of deferred tax, if any, credited to the profit and loss account is required to be reduced from the book profit." The AO was directed to verify the accounting entries and apply the law accordingly.
• Amortization of Premium on Leasehold Land: Since the appellant had already disallowed this amount, the Tribunal held that the AO cannot make the same addition again.
• Remand for Verification: The Tribunal remitted the issues to the AO for verification and consequential rectification, stating: "All these double additions/disallowances as pointed by Ld. AR of the appellant may be verified and if the contentions are correct, all these additions... shall be deleted."

The Tribunal's final determination was to allow the appeal for statistical purposes and remit the matters to the AO for verification and appropriate action consistent with the findings.

---