2025 (12) TMI 426 - HC - Income Tax

Tax relief for assessee on Section 40A(5) disallowance, R&D expenses, excise duty; Section 35B issue remanded

HC held multiple issues in favour of the assessee. Disallowance under Section 40A(5) was rejected, upholding the assessee's claim. Expenditure on ... Deduction u/s 40A(5) is answered in favour of assessee as per Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P) Ltd. [1996 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] Question of deduction with respect to air-conditioning, coolers, calculators, fans used in R&D is answered in favour of assessee. Extra shift allowance on new plant and machinery is answered in favour of assessee in terms of South India Viscos Ltd. [1997 (7) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT] Question of inclusion of excise duty in the value of closing stock is answered in favour of assessee in terms of Dynavision Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT] Weighted deduction - The assessee is claiming that it appointed an agent outside India who promoted its product outside India. The foreign agent appointed an agent in India. The assessee is entitled to deduction in terms of Clause (iv) of Section 35B(1)(b) of 1961 Act. The factual position needs to be examined and matter further needs to be adjudicated in the light of judgments of Supreme Court as well as mandate of Section 35B. Both parties are in tandem that this issue needs to be remanded to assessing authority, accordingly, this question is referred to Assessing Authority who would pass fresh order considering factual position as well judgment of Stepwell Industries Ltd. [1997 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether surtax paid by the assessee is an allowable deduction in computing taxable income. 1.2 Whether the assessee could change the method of valuation of closing stock from total cost method to direct/variable cost method and whether specified indirect/establishment expenses must be included in the value of closing stock. 1.3 Whether the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B in respect of commission paid in relation to export promotion activities carried out through a foreign agent and an Indian agent, and the necessity of remand for factual determination. 1.4 Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 40A(5) as claimed. 1.5 Whether expenditure on air-conditioners, coolers, calculators and fans used by the research and development department qualifies for deduction as R&D expenditure. 1.6 Whether extra shift allowance on new plant and machinery is admissible on the plant and machinery as a whole or only on the basis of the number of days each machinery was put to use. 1.7 Whether excise duty is to be included in the valuation of closing stock. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1 Deductibility of surtax paid by the assessee Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recorded the assessee's own acknowledgment that the issue of allowability of surtax as a deduction already stands settled against the assessee by the Supreme Court. The Revenue also did not dispute this legal position. Conclusions: The question relating to deduction of surtax paid by the assessee is answered against the assessee, holding that surtax is not an allowable deduction. 2.2 Change in method of valuation of closing stock and inclusion of indirect expenses Legal framework (as discussed): The issue arose in the context of assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Tribunal's order permitting the assessee to adopt either direct cost or total cost method for valuing closing stock, while directing inclusion of certain indirect/establishment costs in such valuation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that from assessment year 1982-83 onwards, the assessee adopted the direct/variable cost method, while the Revenue contended that the earlier total cost method must be continued. The Tribunal had held that the assessee was free to adopt either direct or total cost method, but ordered inclusion of certain indirect/establishment expenses in the value of closing stock. It was noticed that inclusion of such indirect costs in closing stock for one year would necessarily lead to their exclusion in the next year's computation, and counsel for the assessee could not controvert this. Counsel for the Revenue expressly stated before the Court that the Revenue had no objection to the method of valuation as applied and approved by the Tribunal. Conclusions: Accepting the factual and legal position and the parties' statements, the Court answered the question relating to inclusion of expenses in the value of closing stock against the assessee, thereby upholding the Tribunal's direction requiring inclusion of the specified expenses. The Revenue's objection to the change in method of valuation itself was not sustained in view of its concession. 2.3 Weighted deduction under Section 35B on commission related to export promotion Legal framework (as discussed): The issue concerned weighted deduction under Section 35B, particularly Clause (iv) of Section 35B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of Supreme Court decisions including the remand directions in relation to commission to agents and the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Stepwell Industries Ltd. Interpretation and reasoning: It was recorded that the Supreme Court had in another matter remanded the issue of weighted deduction under Section 35B on commission paid to Indian agents to the Tribunal for factual examination. In the present case, the assessee claimed that it had appointed a foreign agent to promote its products outside India, and that this foreign agent, in turn, appointed an Indian agent; the assessee asserted eligibility to weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(iv). The Court found that the factual position regarding the nature of services rendered, the identity and role of the foreign and Indian agents, and the precise character of the commission payments required fresh examination. Counsel for the Revenue suggested, and both parties agreed, that the matter should be remanded for fact-finding and decision in accordance with the statutory mandate and applicable Supreme Court judgments. Conclusions: The question of weighted deduction under Section 35B on commission payments is remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the factual matrix and pass a fresh order in accordance with Section 35B and relevant Supreme Court decisions, specifically including Commissioner of Income Tax v. Stepwell Industries Ltd. The Court refrained from finally answering the question on merits, leaving it to the Assessing Officer. 2.4 Deduction under Section 40A(5) Legal framework (as discussed): The controversy related to the allowability and scope of deduction under Section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was noted to be governed by the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P) Ltd. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recorded that, as per the above Supreme Court authority, the legal issue stood settled against the Revenue. The Tribunal had decided the question of deduction under Section 40A(5) in favour of the assessee, and the Court saw no reason to take a different view in light of binding precedent. Conclusions: The question under Section 40A(5) is answered in favour of the assessee, affirming the allowability of the deduction as determined in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling. 2.5 R&D expenditure on air-conditioners, coolers, calculators and fans Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 25,628/- in respect of air-conditioners, coolers, calculators and fans used by its research and development department, asserting that these formed part of R&D expenditure. The Revenue disputed that such items could be treated as R&D expenditure. After hearing the parties and considering the nature and use of these assets as forming part of the research and development department's infrastructure, the Court accepted the assessee's claim. Conclusions: The question relating to deduction for expenditure on air-conditioning and coolers, calculators and fans used in R&D is answered in favour of the assessee, holding such expenditure as eligible for deduction as R&D-related. 2.6 Extra shift allowance on new plant and machinery Legal framework (as discussed): The dispute centred on whether extra shift allowance on new plant and machinery is to be computed with reference to the plant and machinery as a whole or restricted to the number of days each item was put to use. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT. Interpretation and reasoning: In view of the binding precedent, the Court held that the issue already stood concluded. No independent or contrary interpretation was warranted in the face of the Supreme Court's ruling. Conclusions: The question of extra shift allowance on new plant and machinery is answered in favour of the assessee, in terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in South India Viscose Ltd., thereby sustaining the assessee's method of claiming extra shift allowance. 2.7 Inclusion of excise duty in valuation of closing stock Legal framework (as discussed): The issue related to whether excise duty should be included in the valuation of closing stock. The Court referred to and followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Dynavision Ltd. Interpretation and reasoning: Given that the Supreme Court had decided the principle governing inclusion of excise duty in closing stock, the Court applied that binding precedent to the present case. No separate reasoning beyond adherence to the Supreme Court's interpretation was undertaken. Conclusions: The question of inclusion of excise duty in the value of closing stock is answered in favour of the assessee, in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Dynavision Ltd., thereby holding that excise duty is not to be included in the manner contended by the Revenue.