AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., AY. 1996-97). GOA Issue Page and Para of Tribunal orders 1 Foreign travelling expenses of wives of senior managers Para-2, Pg-1-2 2 Refreshment to shareholders at AGM Para-2, Pg.1-2 3 Expense reimbursed to Hindustan Lever Sports Club and Tata Sports Para-2, Pg.1-2 4 Deduction under section 80HH, 80I and 80IA to be allowed separately and simultaneously Para-2, Pg.1-2 5 Excluding excise duty and sale tax for 80HHC deduction Para-2, Pg.1-2 6 Deleting the provision for retirement pension scheme Para-4, Pg. 2 7 Deletion of disallowance towards administration and training expenditure on the rural development Para-2, Pg.1-2 8 Direction to consider receipt and expense of represent business and to exclude the cost and revenue of bulk chemicals and fertilizer business Para-16-16.2, Pg.12-13 Respectfully, following the orders for the earlier years, we decide all the Grounds of appeal against the AO. ITA/4048/Mum/2003 3. During the course of hearing before us, the AR fairly considered that grounds dealing with disallowance of travelling expenses calculated person-wise as against trip-wise (GOA-1), disal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dentical issue was adjudicated and a similar view / direction may be given in the instant ground as well. 40.We have heard the argument and have pursued the order as mentioned and a number of orders of the coordinate Benches. Since the issue has already been dealt with by the ITAT Mumbai Benches, we do not find any reason to deviate from the decision already in place, as mentioned in Para 8 of the order in ITA No. 5331/Mum/1998, wherein the issue was restored to the file of the AO. 41.Following the same, we too take the similar view and restore the issue to the file of the AO, who shall rework out the common expenses. 42.Ground no. 6 is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 43.Ground no. 7 pertains to allocate common income in same proportion to that of common expenses. 44.The issue is also covered by the order of the DCIT in ITA No. 5331/Mum/1998 wherein the coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case has directed the AO work out in the same terms as that of common expenses. 45.As there is no change in the facts, we for the sake of consistency and equity, restore the issue to the AO with the direction to decide the issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal for the AY.1989-90 (ITA/ 8681 &8605 Mum/1992,dated21/09/2011) and it reads as under: "27. The dispute raised in Ground No.14 is regarding set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation while allowing deduction u/s. 80HH and 80I at Haldia Unit. The Assessing Officer allowed the claim u/s. 80HH and 80I in relation the profit of business after setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. In appeal CIT(A) following the decision in assessment year 1988-89, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim without adjusting brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Aggrieved by the decision, the Revenue is in appeal. 27.1. After hearing both the parties, we find that this issue is also covered by the decision of Tribunal in assessment year 1988-89 (supra). In that year, the revenue had relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Synco Industries Ltd. vs. AO (299 ITR 444), to argue that the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation have to be adjusted before allowing claim of deduction u/s. 80HH & 80I. The Tribunal distinguished the said case on the ground that brought forward losses/depre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. He is directed to follow instructions of Tribunal at paragraph 47 at page-9 of the order of the Tribunal in earlier year. He should also consider the matter of Lakshmi Machine Works (supra), relied upon by the Authorised Representative, while re-computing the deduction. Ground No. 8 is decided in favour of the assessee, in part. 9.Ground No.9 deals with expenditure by way of export compensation given to its customers. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 87,11,912/- that the compensation was stated to be paid to the export purchasers outside India to compensate for damaged product, etc. He held that the assessee had allowed discount on the sale price to this extent to the foreign customers, that the amount in question given as discount/compensation to the foreign customers had to be reduced from the export turnover for calculation of deduction u/s. 80HHC. 9.1. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before FAA. It was argued that the AO had reduced the F.O.B. value of Exports by amount of export compensation of Rs .87,1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... foreign buyer the assessee were not referred to by the assessee before us. Therefore, in our opinion the matter needs further verification. In these circumstances, the matter is restored back to the file of the AO. He would afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding the issue. With regard to the alternative claim made by the assessee, that if the disputed amount is reduced from the export turnover the same has to be considered and had to be added back to the profits of business while computing the deduction under section 80 HHC of the Act, we want to mention that the claim should be considered by the AO while deciding the issue. Ground number nine is decided in favour of the assessee, in part. 10.Ground No.10, filed by the assessee and Ground no. 5 of the AO, is about computation of interest while computing the deduction u/s. 80 HHC of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that while computing 'Profits of the Business' for computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC, the assessee had reduced 90% of net interest income only after reducing the interest paid during the year from the total interest receipt. He directed the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Royalty and Market Service Fees (MSF)(Royalty Rs. 16,89,41,669/- and MSF- Rs. 41,47,031/-) received by the assessee. While computing deduction u/s. 80HHC, the AO had allowed the deduction after reducing 90% of the amount of above mentioned two items. 11.1.With regard to the Royalty and MSF, the assessee contended, before the FAA, that those were normal business related receipts and were not specifically covered under clause (baa) of section 80 HHC of the Act and therefore could not be reduced from business for the purposes of computing deduction under the said section. However, he did not agree with the assessee and upheld the order of the AO. 11.2.Before us, the AR argued that the adjustments required to be made to the amount of profits and gains under clause (baa) refer specifically to the receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges and any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits, that royalty and MSF were not specifically included under the clause, that both the items could not be treated as being similar to the items mentioned in the clause of the Explanation. He referred to the cases of Glaxo SmithKline Asia (P) Ltd. (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e DR argued that liability was contingent in nature, that that the assessee had not provided actuarial. We have considered the available material. We find that in the earlier year the Tribunal had dealt the identical issue as under: "13.Ground No.13 is about provision for retirement pension payable to both the employees. Representatives of both the sides agreed that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal for the AY.1994-95 (supra). We are re-producing paragraph 51, page -10 of the said order and it reads as under :- "51. Ground no. 9 pertains to allowance of claim for provision of Rs. 6,99,89,558/- for retirement pension u/s 37(1). 52. The issue was dealt with by the ITAT in ITA No. 5331/Mum/1998 in para 12 wherein the coordinate Bench restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, following coordinate Bench order in assessment year 1991. 53. In the appeal effect order pertaining to assessment year 1991 in para 3, the AO allowed the claim of provision for retirement pension. 54. Since the issue has been accepted by the AO to be allowable, following the order of the ITAT, we, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacturing and sale of bulk chemicals and fertilizers to its subsidiary company namely Hind Liver Chemicals Ltd. (HLCL) for a lumpsum consideration of Rs. 143 crores as going concern along with all tangible and intangible assets including the manufacturing facilities located at Haldia(West Bengal), that the consideration was based on the valuation report prepared by two firms of Chartered Accountants and was approved by the shareholders of the company by its extra ordinary general meeting, that the effective date of transfer of business was 01.01.1996, that the legal formalities and conveyance of immovable property had been completed during the previous year, that sale was of a capital asset, that the capital gains/loss on transfer of the undertaking would have to be determine u/s. 45 r.w.s 48 of the Act, that the undertaking comprised of land and other structures, fixtures fittings, P & M, that it also included transfer of licenses, registrations, current assets and liabilities, trade mark, brand name, copy right, manpower, that the purchaser had assigned value to all the assets bought by it from the assessee. The AO further observed original agreement for sale of agreement was e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Fertilizers Ltd.(90 ITD 344), Novartis India Ltd.(64 SOT 182),Electric Control Gear Mfg. Co.(227 ITR 278), Artex Mfg. Co. (supra), PNB Finance Ltd. (307 ITR 75),M/s. Larson and Tubro (ITA/4442/Mum/2010,AY 1998- 99, dated 27.07.2016)and Aegis Logistics Ltd. (ITA/7825 7 otheres/Mum/2004- AY.1999-2000, dated 10.03.2017). The DR stated that it was the case swapping of businesses, that the effective date for transfer was 01.01.1996,that the agreements were entered into by the parties later on, that the subsidiary and the assessee had entered into a swap sale, that the entire transaction had to be taken as one, that the valuation report was not available to the AO, that HLCL had valued the assets, that same value had to be considered for calculating the capital gains, that the cases relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the facts of the case. 12.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material. We find that the assessee had sold its phosphate business, that it had obtained a valuation report from the registered Valuer, that as per valuation report, dated 26.10.1995,valuation was made at around Rs.143 crores (including Rs.15 crores representing the value ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....versing the order of the FAA, we decide ground no. 3 in favour of the assessee, in part." It is found that in the case of Novartis India Ltd.(supra)that Tribunal has dealt with similar issue. In that matter the assessee had sold its Oral Hygiene Business and had claimed that it was a case of slump sale. It was also argued that capital gain arising from the said transaction was not liable to tax. The AO and the FAA rejected the claim made by it. The Tribunal, after considering rival submissions, held that the assessee had transferred all the intangible assets alongwith the immovables, that the sale consideration was not itemized. Finally, it held that transaction of the sale of Oral Hygiene business was slump sale, that there could not be any capital gain tax liability in the year under consideration, i.e. AY.1995-06.In the case before us, there is no evidence that there was itemized sale, so, in our opinion it is a pure and simple case of slump sale. We would like to refer to the case of Coramandal Fertilizers Ltd. (supra).In that matter the assessee had sold its cement unit to India Cement Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 105.69 crores. Deciding the matter, the Tribunal held ....