ITAT upholds 80IC/80IB relief claims, tweaks 14A r.w.r. 8D, remands distress-sale valuation, PF delay disallowed

ITAT Mumbai dismissed Revenue's challenge to deduction claims u/s 80IC/80IB, holding the AO could not deny deduction when relief in the initial year remained unwithdrawn and interest-free funds sufficiently financed eligible units, rendering allocation of interest/finance costs unwarranted. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D was partly allowed, directing the AO to recompute by considering only investments yielding actual exempt income. On sale of immovable property, the issue was remanded to the AO with a direction to seek DVO valuation in light of the assessee's distress-sale plea. Disallowance of delayed employees' PF contribution was upheld in line with binding SC precedent. Issues of TDS credit and set-off of MAT credit were remanded for verification and consequential relief.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Allowability of deduction under sections 80-IB and 80-IC in respect of specified units manufacturing "Ujala Supreme" and other products.

1.2 Whether interest and finance costs are to be allocated to the units claiming deduction under sections 80-IB/80-IC, thereby reducing eligible profits.

1.3 Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D in years with (a) no exempt income, and (b) exempt income from share of profit in partnership firms.

1.4 Application of section 50C in respect of sale of immovable properties claimed to be "distress sale" and necessity of reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO).

1.5 Disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B.

1.6 Grant of credit for tax deducted at source (TDS) and set-off of minimum alternate tax (MAT) credit.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Deduction under sections 80-IB / 80-IC for eligible units

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 The Tribunal noted that the dispute regarding eligibility of deduction under sections 80-IB/80-IC for units manufacturing "Ujala Supreme" (fabric whitener) and other products had already been adjudicated in earlier years by Co-ordinate Benches in favour of the assessee.

2.2 The earlier decisions, after detailed examination of the manufacturing process, held that the activities carried out in the eligible units result in "manufacture" within the meaning of section 2(29BA), as a new and distinct commodity (fabric whitener) having different name, character and use comes into existence.

2.3 The Tribunal reiterated the findings that:

(a) The process includes blow moulding of HDPE containers, injection moulding of closures, sleeve labelling, blending of Acid Violet Paste with water using machinery and power, filtration, pumping, filling in containers, capping, secondary packaging and dispatch.
(b) The units employ substantial manpower and plant & machinery, and constitute composite manufacturing undertakings, not mere repacking or trading operations.

2.4 The Co-ordinate Benches had also applied the principle from the judgments in Paul Brothers and Simple Food Products (P) Ltd., holding that once deduction under sections 80-IB/80-IC is granted in the "initial assessment year", the claim cannot be denied in subsequent years unless the relief granted in the initial year is withdrawn, there being no change in the underlying facts.

2.5 The Tribunal observed that no new facts or distinguishing features had been brought on record by the Revenue for the years under consideration and the past relief for the initial years had not been withdrawn.

Conclusions

2.6 The Tribunal followed the earlier Co-ordinate Bench decisions and upheld the allowability of deduction under sections 80-IB/80-IC for the relevant units. The Revenue's grounds challenging such deduction for all captioned assessment years were dismissed.

Issue 2: Allocation of interest and finance costs to 80-IB/80-IC eligible units

Interpretation and reasoning

2.7 The Assessing Officer allocated borrowing costs to the units claiming deduction under sections 80-IB/80-IC on the premise that non-allocation resulted in inflated eligible profits and double benefit (interest claimed against non-eligible income while not being reduced from eligible unit profits).

2.8 The assessee submitted before the first appellate authority detailed year-wise data of reserves and surplus, net operating cash flows, investments in the eligible undertakings, and corporate borrowings, along with the purposes of such borrowings.

2.9 On examination of this data, the appellate authority recorded findings that:

(a) Sufficient interest-free funds (reserves, internal accruals, operating cash flows) were consistently available to cover the investments in all eligible units during the relevant years.
(b) Year-on-year profits of the units were significantly higher than their working capital requirements, and cash accruals were adequate to fund the units throughout the deduction period.
(c) The borrowings/loan funds were specifically raised and utilised for the acquisition of Henkel group entities and for servicing the related debt, and not for financing the 80-IB/80-IC units or their working capital.

2.10 Based on these factual findings, the appellate authority held that there was no nexus between the borrowings and the investments/operations of the eligible units, and hence no part of the interest cost could be allocated to such units.

2.11 The Tribunal noted that these factual findings had not been controverted by the Revenue and found no reason to disturb them.

Conclusions

2.12 The Tribunal affirmed that no allocation of interest/finance costs to the 80-IB/80-IC units was warranted, and the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer on this account were deleted for all relevant years.

Issue 3: Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D

(A) Years with no exempt income

Legal framework noted

2.13 The Tribunal referred to the decision of the High Court in Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., as affirmed by the Supreme Court, holding that section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income is earned in the relevant year. The Tribunal also noted the decision in Era Infrastructure holding the Explanation to section 14A to be prospective.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.14 For assessment years 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, it was an undisputed fact that the assessee had not earned any exempt income.

2.15 Applying the above legal position, the Tribunal held that the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D could not be applied in years where there was no exempt income.

Conclusions (A)

2.16 Disallowances under section 14A for the years with no exempt income were held to be unsustainable and were deleted.

(B) Years with exempt income from share of profit in partnership firms

Interpretation and reasoning

2.17 For assessment years 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2023-24, the assessee had exempt income in the form of share of profit from partnership firms. The assessee argued that such income, being already taxed in the hands of the firm, should not be treated as "exempt" for section 14A, and alternatively that only investments actually yielding exempt income should be considered for Rule 8D computation.

2.18 The Tribunal did not accept or decide the primary contention regarding nature of the share of profit but accepted the alternative plea. Relying on the settled principle that only those investments which actually yield exempt income are to be considered for the purpose of Rule 8D, the Tribunal directed a restricted computation.

Conclusions (B)

2.19 The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D for assessment years 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2023-24 by considering only those investments which in fact yielded exempt income. The assessee was directed to furnish the relevant investment details and the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in accordance with these directions. The ground was partly allowed.

Issue 4: Application of section 50C and need for DVO reference in alleged distress sale

Interpretation and reasoning

2.20 For assessment year 2019-20, the assessee sold two immovable properties in West Bengal (at Panditia Road, Kolkata and at Siliguri). Based on actual consideration, one property resulted in long-term capital loss and the other in long-term capital gain, with a net long-term capital gain returned at a lower figure than that computed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of stamp duty valuation under section 50C, who made an addition which was confirmed in first appeal.

2.21 The assessee contended that the sales were "distress sales" and that the market value was substantially below stamp duty value, and urged that the Assessing Officer ought to have referred the properties to the DVO.

2.22 The Tribunal accepted that where the assessee specifically claims that the actual consideration is lower due to distress sale and disputes the stamp duty value, the proper course for the Assessing Officer is to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.

Conclusions

2.23 The issue relating to section 50C addition was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to make a reference to the DVO, allow the assessee to present its case of distress sale before the DVO, and thereafter re-decide the matter as per law. The ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 5: Disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF

Legal framework noted

2.24 The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT & Ors. (448 ITR 518), which holds that employees' contributions to PF/ESI, if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, are not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va), notwithstanding section 43B.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.25 In view of this binding precedent, the Tribunal held that delayed deposits of employees' share of PF contribution are not allowable deductions even if deposited before the due date of filing the return.

Conclusions

2.26 The ground challenging the disallowance for delay in deposit of employees' PF contribution was dismissed, and the disallowance sustained.

Issue 6: Grant of TDS credit and MAT credit

Interpretation and reasoning

2.27 The assessee raised grievances regarding non-grant of TDS credit and non-allowance of set-off of MAT credit, pointing out that rectification applications were pending before the Assessing Officer and that some credits as per records had not been given effect to.

2.28 The Tribunal, without adjudicating on quantum, directed that these are matters of verification and mechanical application of statutory provisions.

Conclusions

2.29 The Assessing Officer was directed:

(a) To verify and grant TDS credit in accordance with law for all relevant years, or to dispose of pending rectification applications expeditiously;
(b) To verify the availability of MAT credit and allow set-off in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

2.30 Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C was held to be consequential to the final assessed income.

---