TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 40A(9) of the IT Act. II. Deleted the disallowance made on account of publicity and public relation expenses amounting to Rs. 14,75,715/- III. Deleted the disallowance made on account of depreciation claimed in respect of intangible assets in the form of right in relation to power from APGPCL amounting to Rs. 7,90,92,994/-. IV. Deleted disallowance of depreciation in respect of assets retired from active used amounting to Rs. 39,52,820/-. V. Deleted addition of Rs. 66,58,952/- on a/c of enabling assets written off. VI. Deleted addition made on account of Mine Development Expenses amounting to Rs. 1,90,50,000/-. VII. Deleted the addition on a/c of undervaluation of closing stock of ore amounting to Rs. 6,87,45,564/-. VIII. Deleted the reduction of Rs. 87,97,262/- made by the AO for the claim u/s 80IA of the Act. IX. Directed to allow donation of Rs. 1,10,52,000/- given to Nandi Foundation as an expenditure u/s 37(1) of the act in-spite of the view taken by the AO in allowing the same u/s 80G @ 50%. X. Deleted the addition of Rs. 8,55,50,700/- on a/c of waiver of electricity duty. XI. Deleting the disallowance of Rs. 11,15,00,000/- as exchange rate difference on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find merit in the order of the ld. CIT (A) who has rightly allowed the above expenditure agitated by revenue qua Ground no. 7,8, and 9. This Bench of ITAT vide its order dated 03-03-2016 has allowed similar expenses by following observations. "13.5 we have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Assessee is a PSU governed by statutory as well as internal regulations for incurring the expenditure, its approval as per a hierarchical administrate frame work. On facts neither of the auditors i.e. statutory and tax auditors have indicated anything adverse in respect of staff welfare expenditure. It is also a fact that the staff welfare expenditure is incurred through various bodies in consultation with such staff unions. These facts coupled with findings of ld. CIT (A) that expenditure is genuine. Wholly for business purposed and allowed in various earlier years even after verification have neither been dislodged by revenue nor controverted in any manner except raising a specious plea that issue may be set aside again. Its vehemently contended that setting aside amounts to be a burden of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore, following our decision in assessee's own case (supra) for the assessment year 2001-02, we uphold the order o the ld. CIT(A) in this behalf. Thus, Ground Nos. 7,8, and 9 of the Revenue are dismissed. 15.3 Facts and circumstances of the case being similar to earlier years and also following our own decision in the above grounds of appeal (supra), the ground no. 7,8 and 9 of the Revenue are dismissed. 11.2 Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case(supra), the ground no. 5 of the Revenue challenging staff welfare expense u/s 40A(9) is dismissed." 4.1 Therefore, taking a consistent view, the Ground no. 1 of Revenue's appeal is dismissed." In view of the above, the ground no. 1 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 3. Apropos to ground no. 2, it is stated by the Ld. Representative of the parties, that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Assessee's own case. We find that the ground no. 2, is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in ITA no. 612/JU/2009, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal decided the issue in para 5 to 5.2 as under:- "5. Apropos to Ground no. 2 it is stated by the representative of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is dismissed. 4. Apropos to ground no. 3, it is stated by the Ld. Representative of the Parties, that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case. We find that the ground no. 3 is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No. 612/JU/2009,wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal decided the issue in para 6 to 6.1 as under:- " 6. Apropos to ground no. 3, it is stated by the ld. Representatives of the Parties, that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 235/Jodhpur/2008 decided this issue in para 10.1 to 10.2 by observed as under:- " 10.1 As regards ground 4 of the Revenue regarding the allowability of depreciation on APGPCL shares, we find that the similar issue has been decided by us in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2003-04 vide our order dated 11-03-2016 (in ITA No. 537/JU/2007 - Revenue) wherein revenue's Ground No. 4 has been partly allowed by following observations. "14.2 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find that Ground No. 6 of the Revenue is similar to Ground No. 6 of the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to transfer to get commercial right for marketing, customer support, distribution and associate set ups; otherwise such market/customer network would not have been transferred to assessee -company by company 'S'. The amount so paid to acquire the commercial rights (and not the consideration to acquire shares) was held eligible for depreciation. 17.23 These facts, circumstances and judicial decisions lead us hold that in such type of business transactions, there are always some tangible assets and some intangibles assets which are sold and acquired and each case will have its own peculiarities in terms of dominant objective of such acquisition and a reasonable estimation of valuation of dominant intangible asset and other rights is to be arrived at. In the cases a discussed above, the value of intangibles are either deduced by way of a residuary methodology where consideration paid over and above the net book value has been considered as value of intangible or there could be a specific consideration agreed with the seller towards acquisition of intangibles. 17.24 In light of above discussion facts, circumstances and case laws of Smiff Securities. Bharti Teletech and other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngible assets, like securing expedient and useful power supply obtained from APGPCL are invaluable for carrying on the business by the assessee. (vi) Acquisition of such intangible assets which are whole or part of acquisition value, therefore, correspondingly comparable to a license to carry out the existing transmission and distribution business of the transferor. In this case also APGPCL got the rights of earlier allotee in favour of the assessee. (vii) Hon'ble SC in Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. held that intangible assets owned by the assessee and used for the business purpose which enables the assessee to access the market and has an economic and money value is a "license" or "akin to a license" which is one of the items falling in Section 32(I)(ii). (viii) Even if strictly the rights do not amount to license, in any case they constitute another genus of other commercial rights of similar nature as envisaged by sec. 32(I)(ii). (ix) The shares are the written means to acquire and enjoy the rights of electricity under a policy formulated by APSEB and AGPGCL under the aegis of policies of AP Govt. Therefore the rights being achieved in the form of zero dividend share cer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.1 to 16.2 by observed as under:- "16.1 As regards ground 11 of the Revenue challenging claim of depreciation on assets retired from active, use we find that the similar issue has been decided by us in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2003-04 vide our order dated 11/03/2016 ( in ITA No. 537/JU/2007 - Revenue) wherein Revenue's Ground no. 11 has been dismissed by following observations. "22.2 We have heard the rival contention and perused the materials available on record. We find that Ground no. 18 of the Revenue is similar to Ground No. 15 of the Revenue for the assessment year 2002-03 and the issue in question has been decided against the Revenue by this Bench vide its order dated 09/03/2016 by following observations. 22.7 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yamaha Motor India(P) Ltd. (2010), 328 ITR 297 wherein it is held as under:- "Held dismissing the appeal, that as long as the machinery was available for use, though not actually used, it feel within the expression "used for the purpose of the busines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in the above ground of appeal(supra), the ground no. 18 of the Revenue is dismissed." 16.2 Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case(supra), the Ground No. 11 of the Revenue challenging claim of depreciation on assets retired from active use is dismissed." 7.1 Therefore, this ground of the revenue's appeal is dismissed." In view of the above, the Ground no. 4 of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 6. Apropos to Ground no. 5, it is stated by the ld. Representatives of the Parties, that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case. We find that the ground no. 5 is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in ITAT No. 612/JU/2009, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal decided this issue in para 8 to 8.2 as under:- "8. Apropos to ground no. 6, it is stated by the ld. Representatives of the Parties, and that identical issue is decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 235/JU/2008 in assessee's own case pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05 in para 13.1 to 13.2 has reads as under:- "13.1 As regards ground 7 of the Revenue challenging Ghosunda Damn expenses we find that the similar issue has been decided....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incurred for Ghosunda Dam. In view of the above, the ld. AR contended that the disallowance deserved to be deleted. As far as the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 4,79,519/- complete details from all the units could not be filed at the time of assessment. He further stated the claim of the appellant deserve to be allowed on the basis of audited balance sheet as the amounts are audited by the auditors appointed by C & AG. 11.3 I have considered the facts of the case and also gone through the decision of Hon'ble ITAT (supra). Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble IT, Act in the case of the appellant cited above, I hold that the AO was not justified in disallowing the expenditure incurred on Gosunda Dam amounting to Rs. 9,3,45,17/- , the same is deleted. With regard to other disallowances of Rs. 4,79,519/- in the appellant proceedings also, the ld. AR did not file any details. Therefore, the ascertainment is not possible. Hence, the disallowance is confirmed." 15.2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that this issue is covered and settled in its favour of the assessee, ITAT allowed these claims in AYs 1991-92 and 1992-93; aggrieved revenue preferred ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances of the case being same as earlier and also following our own decision in the above ground of appeal(supra), the ground No. 11 of the Revenue is dismissed. 13.2 Respectfully following decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is assessee's own case(supra), Ground No. 7 of the Revenue challenging Ghosunda damn expenses is dismissed." 8.2. The facts are identical and taking into consistent view, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed." In view of the above, the Ground no. 5 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 7. Apropos to Ground no. 6, it is contended that this is also covered by earlier orders, i.e. in ITA No.95/JU/2007, wherein the issue is decided in para 12.1 to 12.3 as under:- "12.1. Apropos Ground No. 3 regarding deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,53,19,060/- on account of Mines Development Expenses. 12.2. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The similar issue arose in the assessment year 2001-01 and 2001-02 this issue in question has been set aside and restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) by ITAT with following observations:- 16.5 Ld. Counsel further contends that mining operations for procuring ore is an essential and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) will be free to take a decision depending on the merits and consideration of judicial position. This ground no. 10 of the revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 12.3 Following the decision of this Bench dated 03/03/2016 in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2001-02(supra), the issue in question is restrored back to the file of the ldj. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue expeditiously. This ground no. 3 of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. In view of above the above, the Ground no. 6 of Revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. The issue is restored to the file of AO for deciding the same, after considering submissions of the assessee and verifying the records. 8. Apropos to ground no. 7, the ld. Departmental Representatives submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made on account of under- valuation of closing stocks. He submitted that the identical issue was raised before this Tribunal in ITA No. 612/JU/2009. He submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC), the value of the stocks is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the taxes of a particular year being payable with reference to the income of that year, as computed in terms of the Act, the method adopted by the assessee has been found to be such that income cannot properly be deduced therefore,. It is therefore, not only the right but the duty of the Assessing Officer to act in exercise of his statutory power, as he has done in the instant case, for determining what, in his opinion, is the correct taxable income." We find that the ld. CIT(A) decided the issue by observing that the method of stock valuation is changed and changed is bonafide. This has been regularly adopted by the appellant and is in line with the accounting principles. Since the closing stock of the relevant year becomes the opening stock of the next year the same is revenue neutral. Thus, the accounting method of stock valuation is done by bonafide intention to arrive at true profit of the business. It is further observed by the ld. CIT(A) that in the order dated 16/03/2005 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02 and subsequently, in 2002-03 and 2004-05 wherein it has been decide the claim of the valuation of closing stock of ore etc., is allowable. It is pointed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see has to demonstrate the value so adopted by furnishing the evidences in support thereof. In the present case, the assessee has failed to discharge this requirement of law, therefore, in order to compute the correct value this issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh. The Assessing Officer is hereby directed to make on the spot enquiry for verification of the correct value of the stocks of ore. We are unable to accept the contention of the assessee that the stock of ore is merely soil and has no realizable value. In our considered view, there has to be some basis for adopting a certain value of such stocks. Needless to say, that the Assessing Officer would afford sufficient opportunity to the assessee for furnishing of evidence in support of the value of the stocks. This ground of the Revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes". 8.2 There is no change into facts and circumstances in the year under appeal. Therefore, taking a consistent view, this issue is also restored to the file of the assessing officer for decision afresh for valuing the stock. The AO would decide the issue in the light of direction given in ITA No. 612/JU/2009 pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trate in this cae HO and other common assets have no proximate connection which the CPP, Debari which is an industrial undertaking eligible to deduction under section 80IA. The HO and other common assets existed even prior to installation of CPP. The alleged expenses represent general corporate expenditure which can't be allocated or assigned to an independent unit engaged in power generating activity on standalone basis. While reducing the deduction u/s 80IA, ld. AO has ignored the crucial term "derived from" used in sec. 80IA A term which became subject matter of judicial decision and settled by Hon'ble supreme Court. This crucial omission has resulted in AO's conclusion that: (i) The proportionate depreciation of other common assets is allocable to be reduced from the profits of eligible CPP unit. (ii) The proportionate part of the employees' remuneration and benefits, administrative and selling expense such a remuneration of managers, directors, auditors, financial advertisers, amenities and Head Officer assets is also require to be allocated to CPP Debari. (iii) Ld. AO instead of establishing any direct of proximate relation between these unconnected proportionate expens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valid justification. d) Apropos expenses like, rates & taxes, fees to auditors, cot auditors, directors travelling, reimbursement of corporate expense as well as consultancy charges etc., such expenses were required to be incurred irrespective of the CPP Unit. e) Eligible profits of any industrial undertaking which exits on standalone footing, according to accepted accounting the legal principles, are to be computed after taking into account all the receipts and expenditure incurred only by it and not by notionally attributing the proportionate depreciation or administrative expenses on assumptions. f) The aforesaid expenses of salary and wages, contribution to provident fund etc. and other benefits to employee' insurance, consultancy and other administrative expense as alleged by ld. AO, have in fact, been incurred at Udaipur Office for goods manufactured i.e. zinc and lead by the appellant . Consequently, such expenditure is deductible while computing the profit of assessee's manufacturing business of zinc and lead. Any part thereof cannot be hypothetically attributed to independent CPP unit situated at Debri. Such presumptive and notional reduction of claim u/s 80IA is ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was maintained for the overall benefit of the manufacturing units only and HO was not a profit earning centre; it had no income other than the manufacturing units. Therefore, R& D expense incurred for the development of new drugs were assumed to be for the benefit of all manufacturing units. On this basis, ld. AO allocated proportionate and similarly reduced them from eligible income while calculating deduction u/s 80IA. CIT(A) and ITAT upheld AO's action rejecting the appellant's contention that the R & D expense incurred by HO had nothing to do with the eligible units and proportionate expenses should not be reduced while calculating deduction u/s 80IA. Hon'ble Bomaby High Court upheld assessee's claim. Ld. CIT(A) in this case while deleting the reduction from assessee's claim u/s 80IA has applied nearly similar observation. In view thereof no infirmity can be attributed to the order of ld. CIT(A) which is upheld. In the given facts, circumstances and legal position, we hold that the said HO Expenses with the eligible industrial undertaking i.e. CPP, therefore the unrelated proportionate HO expenses cannot be reduced while computing deduction u/s 80IA. This ground no. 12 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....merit into the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the donation of Nandi foundation for providing mid- day-meal under the Government of Rajasthan Scheme, is allowable as business expenditure. Section 37(1) operates in a different field. In our view there has to be direct nexus between the amounts spent and the business of the assessee. In the present case, there is no evidence suggesting that the expenditure is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. Therefore, this ground of the Revenue's appeal is allowed. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is set aside and that the Assessing Officer is restored. Thus, Ground no. 9 of the revenue's appeal is allowed. 11. Ground no. 10 is against deletion of addition of Rs. 8,55,50,700/- made on account of waiver of electricity duty. The ld. CIT (DR) vehemently argued that ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact in right perspective. He submitted that waiver of the electricity duty is nothing but remission of liability which cannot be termed as subsidy. Subsidy is different from the waiver of electricity duty. This aspect was not considered by the ld. CIT (A) while decidi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy2003". With a view to provide investors an attractive opportunity to invest in the State of Rajasthan, the following scheme is introduced in the state. Clause-2: Operative Period : The scheme shall come into operation with effect from 1st July, 2003 and shall remain in force upto 31st March, 2008. Clause-3: Applicability of the scheme The scheme shall be applicable to all new investments and investments made by existing units and enterprises for modernization/diversification, subject to the condition that such units shall commence commercial production/operations owing to such investment during the operative period of the scheme. Clause-5: Eligibility: The benefit (subsidies as per Clause 7 and exemption as per Clause 9 under this scheme shall be available to all units, other than those covered in the list of ineligible units subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:- (i) To claim wage/employment subsidy the unit shall provide:- (a) Direct employment to at least then persons in case of a new unit and (b) Twenty five percent additional direct employment subject to a minimum of ten persons in case of diversif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 23/7/2001 that the power subsidy received by the respondent was of revenue nature inasmuch as it went towards reduction of the electricity bills. 49. The A/R has cited the decision of Bombay Spt. Bench ITD 273 (2004) in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. In this case the following point was to be decided; "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cae and in law the assessee company is justified in its claim that the sales tax incentive allowed to it during the previous year in terms of relevant government order constitute capital receipt and is not to be taken into account in computation of total income. The factual position in this case is as under:- The assessee set up a unit in Patalganga which is a notified area and became eligible for incentive announced by the Govt. of Maharashtra, which begins commercial production in November, 1982. The incentive was in the form of exemption from liable for payment of sales tax for a period of 5 years commencing from 8-6-83 and ending on 7-6-1988. The assessee's claim was that the quantum of the sale tax liable would be claimed as deduction on the basis of that it is a capital receipt or on the basis of that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has also commenced in the same financial year. Thus all the terms and conditions of the scheme do clearly define that the waiver of electricity duty by the Govt. of Rajasthan was with a purpose to held the assessee to establish a new power plant and not to held in day to day operations of the power plant. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Spl. Bench, Bombay in the case of Reliance Industries is fully applicable to the appellant's case. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is deleted. The appeal is allowed on this ground." From above, it can be inferred that ld. CIT (A) considered all the judgments as relied by the parties and by following the decision of the Special Bench deleted the addition. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the waiver of electricity duty is linked with the quantum of investment made by the Assessee. The pre condition for availing such incentive is essentially investment made by the assessee. In the Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd.(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the issue and laid down principles on the basis of which a subsidy given to the assessee is required to be categorized. If it is an operational....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It was not for acquiring the capital asset. It was not to meet part of the cost. It was not granted for production of or bringing into existence any new asset. The subsidies in that case were granted year after year only after setting up of the new industry and only after commencement of production, and therefore, such a subsidy would only be treated as assistance given for the purpose of carrying on the business of the assessee. Consequently, the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee on the facts of that case stood rejected and it was held that the subsidy received by Sahney Steel could not be regarded as anything but a Revenue receipt. Accordingly, the matter was decided against the assessee. The importance of the judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel & Press Work's Ltd.'s case(supra) lies in the fact that it has discussed any analyzed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to be applied in judging the character of a subsidy. The test that the character of the receipt in the hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. In other words, in such cases, on has to apply the purpose test. The point of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s held that money received by the company was not in the course of trade but was of capital nature. The judgment of House of Lords shows that the source of payment or the form in which the subsidy is paid or the mechanism through which it is paid is immaterial and that what is relevant is the purpose for payment of assistance. Ordinarily such payments would have been on revenue account but since the purpose of the payment was to curtain/obliterate unemployment and since the purpose was dock extension, the House of Lords held that the payment made was of capital nature. 16. one more aspect needs to be mentioned. In Sahney & Press Works Ltd.'s case (supra) this court found that the assessee was free to use the money in its business entirely as it liked. It was not obliged to spend the money for a particular purpose. In the case of Seaham Harbour Dock Co. (supra) assesee was obliged to spend the money for extension of its docks. This aspect is very important. In the present case also, receipt of subsidy was capital in nature as the assessee was obliged to utilize the subsidy only for repayment of term loans undertaken by the assessee for setting up new units/expansion of exist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re as such during the year nor the liability has crystallized or finalized during the relevant assessment year. Such claim of exchange rate difference would be notional till loan was actually repaid and the liability ascertained. It was opined by the Assessing Officer that since the loan was acquired for capital purpose, any accretion to liability was necessarily a capital in nature. The loan was a balance sheet item and held as capital liability and, therefore, any increase therein would also be logically capital in nature. Ld. DR submitted that there is no infirmity into this reasoning of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that as per section 43A of the Act, there shall be adjustment to the actual cost of the asset so imported on account of exchange rate fluctuation in the year of repayment. Section 43A speaks of loan taken specifically for acquiring the assets. Even the benefit of depreciation on increased cost of assets is allowable only in the year of repayment of loan not before that. 12.1. On the contrary, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor (2009....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d). The period in question in the batch of civil appeal is prior to the Finance Act, 2002, therefore, we are required to consider the scope of section 43A (unamended). 30. Section 43A starts with a non obstante clause. Section 43A(1) overrides the other provisions only as regards cases falling under that sub-section. For instance, in a case where the asset is acquired, or the liability to pay in foreign exchange arises, after the change in the rate of exchange, the said sub-section has no application and the general principles of law must be applied in decided where ther actual cost is increased or reduced as a result of such change. In other words, section 43A(1) applies only where as a result of change in the rate of exchange there is an increase or reduction in the liability of the assessee in terms of the India rupee to pay the price of any asset payable in foreign exchange or to repay moneys borrowed in foreign currency specifically for the purpose of acquiring the asset. Section 43A(1), therefore, has no application unless the asset is a acquired and the liability existed, before the change in the rate of exchange takes effect. In such a case, section 43A contemplates recom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be allowed with reference to such increased/decreased cost. This position is also made clear by Circular No. 5-P dated October 9, 1967, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. One more point needs to be mentioned. Section 43A (unammended) corresponds to paragraph 10 of AS-11 similarly providing for adjustment in the carrying cost of fixed assets acquired in foreign currency, due to foreign exchange fluctuation at each balancesheet date. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: "10. Exchange differences arising on repayment of liabilities incurred for the purpose of acquiring fixed assets, which carried in terms of historical cost, should be adjusted in carrying amount of the respective fixed assets. The carrying amount of such fixed assets should, to the extent not already so adjusted or otherwise accounted for, also be adjusted to account for any increase or decrease in the liability of the enterprise, as expressed in the reporting currency by applying the closing rate, for making payment towards the whole or a part of the cost of the assets or for repayment of the whole or a part of the monies borrowed by the enterprise from any person, directly or indirectly, in forei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals filed by the Department stand dismissed with no order as to costs." Respectfully following the same, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. This ground of the Revenue' appeal is dismissed. In the Result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Now, we take up Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 606/JU/2008, pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. "A. In not allowing deductions on account payments made as under, in determining the taxable income:- (i) Rs. 1500000/- towards Jeeva Eduational Trust. (ii) Rs. 286000/- towards Gram Panchayat, Jetusar (iii) Rs. 400000/- towards Pandit Chatur Lal Memorial (iv) Rs. 250000/- towards Dr. Cy. Mehta Rehab Centre. (v) Rs. 150000/- towards Badhir Bal Kalyan Vikas Samiti (vi) Rs. 150000/- towards Vikalang Kalyan Samiti B. Above contributions are allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act also C. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal." 13. In ground no. A & B are inter-related. All these relates to a allowability of donations made by the assessee to various ch....