TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in holding that depreciation of Rs. 7,19,12,000/- for the A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 5,82,73,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05, and Rs. 5,92,06,000/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively claimed separately under the head "Social Overhead" over and above depreciation of Rs. 1,38,03,89,764/- Rs. 1,22,80,02,789/- and Rs. 1,48,84,39,000/- respectively already claimed u/s 32 of the Act as not double claim of depreciation? b) Whether of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,87,000/- for A.Y. 2003-04 and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively against 'IICM Contribution' claimed under section 40A(9) of the Act? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,09,53,935/- for the A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 10,29,46,358/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 and Rs. 26,91,71,670/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively on account of closing stock of coal? d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....questionnaire was issued on 31.12.2004, the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee. The Assessing Officer on considering the following issues completed the Assessment by order dated 30.03.2006. The different heads under which the assessments were completed are as here under:- (i) Depreciation (ii) IICM contribution (iii) Closing Stock of Coal (iv) Guest House Expenses (v) Grant to Sports and Recreation (vi) Environmental Expenditure (vii) Hire Charges of bus/cars/ambulances and school bus (viii) Miscellaneous expenses under schedule 12(sub heads others) (ix) And other liabilities shown under Schedule 8. 4. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the respondent assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CITA) which was dismissed by order dated 19.01.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent assessee preferred appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal except for one of the issues namely issue No. (vii) (hire charges of bus, cars, ambulance and school bus) decided all issues in favour of the respondent assessee and so far as issue no. (vii) the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the revenue before this Court are entirely factual and there are no questions of law much less substantial questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the revenue. 7. We have elaborately heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record. As pointed out earlier the Assessing Officer considered the loss return filed by the assessee on various heads which have been enumerated above. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the sufficient documents have not been produced by the assessee to sustain the various claims under the above heads. The Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent assessee pointed out that all the documents and records were placed before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CITA and the tribunal, the Assessing Officer and the CITA did not properly appreciate the contention put forth by the assessee and rejected their case. Further, the tribunal being as last fact finding authority had elaborately discussed the matter and granted relief to the respondent assessee on the different heads as mentioned above. 8. To examine as to whether the contention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n which is permissible under section 32 of the Act. Thus, the tribunal concluded that the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim is based on the premise that the assessee has made a double claim which was found to be factually incorrect by the tribunal. Accordingly, the disallowance was directed to be deleted. 10. The second ground relates to the IICM contribution. The CITA while considering the said issue held that it was not ascertainable as to how and under what circumstances such big amounts have been debited as IICM contribution in the profit and loss account, and it is not ascertainable as to whether claim of such expenses was incidental to the business activities carried on by the assessee or not as per relevant provisions of section 40 A (9) and therefore the expenditure was not allowable. The tribunal considered the submissions of the assessee who had pointed out that the Indian Institute of Coal Management (IICM) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, it is known as a Centre of Excellence having state of art facilities for providing continuing education and training requirements of different corporate bodies in general and compani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(9) of the Act. Therefore, the contention advanced by the assessee was accepted and the deduction was directed to be allowed. 11. The next issue is with regard to the addition on account of closing stock of coal. The CITA confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to prove their contention that there is no saleable value or realizable value of the closing stock of coal. The assessee while challenging the finding contended that on the basis of technical evaluation of coal mixed with Matti the assessee company has valued such stock at NIL, since it is of the view that such coal is not saleable in the open market. The tribunal held that the assessee is justified in taking a decision whether coal mixed with Matti can be sold in the open market or whether it would fetch any price, if sold in the open market and the Income Tax Authorities cannot decide as to whether such coal can be sold in the open market or can be used for other purposes. Therefore, the tribunal held that the value of the coal as determined by the Assessing Officer does not have any basis and accordingly accepted the contention advanced by the assessee. ....