AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O") u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was erroneous to the extent of the expenditure on catalyst claimed as revenue expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act and depreciation claimed u/s. 32(1) of the Act on Technical Know-how and Embedded Process Technology of Rasal Unit. 1.2. The Learned CIT erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO had already applied his mind during the course of assessment proceedings by raising specific queries and accepting the details and replies filed by the Appellant on the said issues raised u/s. 263 of the Act and as such the order passed by the AO would not be held as erroneous. 1.3. The Learned CIT further erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO had allowed Appellant's claim by taking a plausible view and as such the order of the AO was not erroneous. 1.4. The Appellant prays that it be held that the order passed by AO was not erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and as such the same would not be revised u/s. 263 of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND I; GROUND II: 2.1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT erred in directing the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made. Consequently, the draft order was passed on 28.02.2013. Assessee filed objection before the DRP- 2, Mumbai on 29.11.2013 wherein the transfer pricing adjustment was modified to Rs.10,97,84,000/-. Consequent to that, assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) was passed determining total income of the assessee at loss of Rs. 14,28,98,820. The ld. AO a. Disallowed Rs.30,22,002/- being expenditure incurred u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act. b. Disallowance u/s. 14(A) was determined at Rs.2,79,011 against exempt income earned by the assessee. c. Certain sundry balances were written off , so an addition of Rs.1,40,823/- was made thereon. d. There were certain differences and mismatch in Form No. 26AS accordingly, addition of Rs. 2,20,870/- was made. 05. The ld. CIT examined the records of the assessment and noted that i. Assessee in it books of accounts has debited to profit and loss account expenditure as deduction on catalyst over period of its life. The portion of expenditure related to unexpired life is carried forward in the books. However, for the purpose of computation of income, assessee claimed the entire expenditure as onetime expenses in the year of purchase/ iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act allowing the claim of the assessee. It was submitted that the ld.AO has applied his mind on the issue for several years, and has correctly allowed the above expenditure. He is submitted that mere CIT holding a different view does not empowered him to invoke provisions of Section 263 of the Act. ii. It was further submitted that identical issue of catalyst expenditure and its allowability of revenue expenditure has been decided by the co-ordinate bench in case of JCIT vs. Tirumalai Chemcials Ltd 9 SOT 744 wherein the catalyst were held to be a revenue expenditure iii. merely because in the books of accounts Expenditure were shown as deferred expenditure the deduction could not have been disallowed in the Income Tax as expenditure is purely revenue in nature. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that wherever two equally valid views are possible and ld.AO has taken one of the views, provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Max India 295 ITR 282. In this case, there is a view available in favor of the assessee as decided in the case of Tirumalai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ock of assets and separate written down value cannot be determined of individual assets. xiii. It was further stated that the claim of depreciation is required to be examined in the first year of its claim, therefore, in subsequent years; it could not have been disturbed. xiv. It was further stated that since the ld.AO does not have power to deny depreciation on building, plant and machinery or technical know-how this year, consequently, the ld.CIT also does not have the power to withdraw the claim. Therefore, it was stated that the order of the ld.CIT is not sustainable in law. 08. The ld. AR submitted that for A.Y. 2010-11, the provision of Section 263 of the Act was invoked only with respect to the claim of expenditure on catalysts. The arguments of the AR are similar for that year too. 09. The ld.CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT. It was stated that when in the books of accounts assessee has treated the catalyst expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure, there is no reason that those expenditure should be allowed to the assessee as revenue expenditure in one year. He submitted that there cannot be two treatments of the same items qua revenue and capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nditure and is allowable in the year in which it is issued to production line, It was held that they have merely used as consumables, is decided in favour of assessee in following judicial precedents:- i. JCIT vs. Tirumalai Chemicals Ltd in 25 CCH 281 ii. DCIT V Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited 67 taxmann.80 iii. Cibatul Limited V DCIt 118 taxman 28 ( Ahd) 013. No judicial precedent was shown to us that consumables are capital expenditure and those are not allowable in the year of use in production line. Thus, the view taken by the LD AO is a plausible and sustainable view. Further, the identical view has been taken by the learned assessing officer of the detailed examination in earlier years. In those years, the view taken by the learned assessing officer was not found to be erroneous. There is no reason demonstrated before us that for assessment year 2009 - 10 the order of the learned assessing officer is erroneous various for assessment year 2006 - 07 until 2008 - 09 that order is free of any error. However, we do not have any hesitation that when the judicial precedents are in favour of the assessee that consumables are revenue expenditure and are allowed to the assessee as ded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion allowed on building and plant and machinery is not correct for assessment year 2009 - 10 where such assets were already destroyed in September 2000. The order passed under section 263 dated 29/3/2016; in paragraph number 7, the learned PCIT is referring the claim of depreciation on know-how. The assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer under section 143 (3) read with section 263 of the income tax act dated 29/7/2016 resulted into disallowance of disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 7,265,473/- which included the depreciation on building and plant and machinery. Thus, the learned assessing officer did not disallow the depreciation only on technical know-how but the building and plant and machinery completely. Even otherwise, the reason for the show cause notice was different then the conclusion arrived at by the learned PCIT. There is no notice/show cause/opportunity to the assessee to explain the depreciation on technical know-how. Even as such, the claim of the depreciation was directed to be disturbed on the basis of user test. The fact shows that capitalization of asset was in earlier years, depreciation is allowed in those years, production has bee....