TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as lease rent paid to M/s. BBTCL for boiler. The AO noted that this boiler was sold by the assessee to the above corporation in the earlier year and was taken on lease by the assessee. The AO, after observing a similar claim of lease rent was disallowed in the earlier years, following the earlier assessment order, disallowed the similar claim this year also. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) by relying on his own order for the assessment year 1993-94 in the assessee's own case, confirmed the said disallowance made by the AO. Aggrieved by the impugned decision the assessee has raised this ground in the appeal before us. 2.1 At the outset it has been brought to our notice that the Tribunal, in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94, has allowed a similar claim of deduction in its favour, which in turn has relied on the earlier orders of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1988-1989 to 1990-91. Needless to mention that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the assessment year 1993-94 in the assessee's own case, which has been relied by the authorities below for the impugned decision for the year under consideration has been reversed by the Tribunal. In the absence of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... how fees has been taxed in the year 1998-99 and if the contention is found correct, then the same cannot be taxed again. Accordingly, Ground No 3 is allowed for statistical purpose. 5. Ground no. 4 relates to the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80HH, 80I and 80IA. The relevant facts are that during the year under consideration, the assessee company claimed deduction u/s 88IA in respect of unit of DMT division. In the computation of profiting and gains in respect of that unit, the assessee had shown a loss of Rs.1408.35 lakhs. While arriving at the said loss, the assessee had included the following items namely:- a) Interest received from customer for delayed payments Rs. 100.21 lakhs b) Interest on ICD Rs. 7.71 lakhs c) Dividend on inter-corporate deposits received on units of UTI Rs.94.79 lakhs d) Interest on statutory deposits, staff loan Rs.33.12 lakhs e) Sales Tax set-off Rs.25.874 lakhs f) Insurance claim Rs. 5.83 lakhs However, in the assessment framed, the AO disallowed the said items of income claimed by the assessee. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) by relying on his own order in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1993-94, confirmed the action of the AO. Ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowance of deduction of Rs.72,45,570/- claimed u/s 80HHC by the assessee company. The relevant facts are that the assessee company claimed a sum of Rs.72,45,570/- as deduction which represented 90% of the export incentives received by it. According to the assessee, 90% of the export incentives should be allowed to it as per the proviso below sub-section (3) of section 80HHC without off-setting the loss as worked out under the said sub section. However, in the assessment framed, the AO did not accept the contention of the assessee on the reason that while working out the deduction u/s 80 HHC, at the first stage, when the profit and loss from the manufacturing operation is worked out, it resulted in a loss, as 90% of the export incentives are removed from the profits and gains and are added only at the last stage of formula. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction as there is no profit, there is no question of adding proportionate export incentive to the profit under the proviso to sub section (3) of 80 HHC does not arise. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) by relying on various decisions confirmed the said disallowance made by the AO. Aggrieved by the impugned decision, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mity in the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the said disallowance. Ground no. 7(i) is dismissed. 9. Ground nos. 7(ii) & 7(iii) are not pressed by the assessee and hence the same require no adjudication. 10. Ground no. 8 relates to the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the order of the AO in treating the impugned capital receipt of Rs.21 lakhs being gains on cancellation of forward foreign exchange contracts as income from speculation business. It is noted that the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) is based on his earlier decision in the assessee's own case on similar claim of the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 and the said decision of the Ld.CIT(A) has also been confirmed by the Tribunal. In the absence of any contradictory fact brought on record by the assessee, following the said decision of the Tribunal, we decide this issue against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Accordingly, ground no. 8 is dismissed. 11. Ground no. 9 is regarding taxability of exchange profit of Rs.29.13 lakhs on repatriation of GDR funds. The relevant facts are that during the year consideration, the assessee company made a Global Depository Receipt (GDR) issue outside India whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch have arisen on account of conversion of foreign currency into Indian Rupees is on account of capital account and the said amount is not taxable as revenue receipt, the direction of the Ld.CIT(A) to reduce cost of capital asset to the extent of gain arose to assessee company on repatriation of foreign currency is not justifiable. Accordingly, Ground No. 9 is allowed. 12. Ground no. 10 relates to the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee company on issue of the first Global Depository Receipts of Rs.727.84 lakhs. In the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee company issued 54,34,782/- GDRs to foreign investors and in connection with the said issue it had incurred expenses aggregating Rs.727.84 lakhs. According to the AO, the share capital of the assessee company had gone up consequent upon the issue of GDRs and the expenditure was incurred by the assessee company with increasing or addition to the existing share capital and as such must be treated as on capital account. Therefore, the AO disallowed the expenditure as not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod to complete the major revamping involved in the expansion. Also, the perusal of the balance sheet as on March 1994 indicates that there is a raise in the fixed assets from 390.97 crores as on 31.03.1993 to 610.71 crores as on March 1994. Schedule 5 on fixed asset indicates that there is an addition of 218.47 crores in gross block during the year under consideration. These facts results in the presumption that the assessee has incurred expenditure in modernization of the DMT division of the assessee company. Due to the reason that the plant has been shut down over a period of time to complete the major revamping involved in the expansion, the fact that there is no increase in the production cannot be a decisive test to negatively conclude that there has no modernization of the DMT Division. However, it is not clear whether the amounts of Rs.48.05 crores and Rs.16.76 crores incurred by the assessee in connection with re-payment of foreign currency loan and investing in PSU bonds is for the purpose of modernization of the DMT division of the assessee company as claimed. In view of that matter, we are of the view that it is just and proper to remit the issue back to the file of t....