JSW Steel Limited v ACIT (ITA No.923/Bang/2009 dated 13.01.2017) (Mumbai ITAT) BACKGROUND: – Assessee had availed term loans from various Indian and foreign financial institutions and banks for setting up of integrated steel plants. The assessee had utilized the above loans to pay the purchase price of the imported plant and machinery for setting up of the Steel plants. The loans were repayable over various maturity dates up to 2010. – After setting up the steel plants, the assessee had incurred huge loss due to economic recession in general and steel industry in particular and was under severe financial crisis. Accordingly, the assessee entered into a financial restructuring package. – After negotiations with the foreign lenders, the assessee entered into agreements to settle the dues, pursuant to which the principal and interest payable were reworked and part of the principal and interest amounts were waived. – Accordingly, the entire sum of was credited to the Profit and Loss account as an exceptional item on account of waiver of the principal and interest payable thereon with a specific note in ‘Notes to Account’ that the exceptional item represents waiver of dues on settlement. – During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that since the waiver of principal amount of borrowing was utilized on capital account, therefore, it is a capital receipt not taxable while computing the income of the assessee and hence the amount waived has not been offered to tax as per section 41(1). – Further, the assessee by way of a note in the computation gave a caveat that the amount of Rs.314.14 crores which represents capital receipt is not in the nature of profit and gains of business and therefore, is not includable in the book profit under section 115JB. – The Assessing Officer, however, while computing the book profit in the assessment order considered the figure as given in the profit & loss account and did not agree to reduce the aforesaid waiver of dues.
Business expenditure/income
Religare Commodities Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) (ITA No.3634/Del/2014 dtd 04.01.2017) Background: – Religare Enterprise Ltd had launched a Stock Appreciation Right Scheme (‘SARS’) effective from 01/04/2007 for employee’s retention purposes. According to the Scheme, specified employees of the appellant company (Religare Commodities Ltd) were granted a specific number of SAR. – The market price of the shares at the time of granting was fixed to be the base price which was Rs. 140/- per share. As per the Scheme, if there is an increase in the value of those shares on the date of exercise of the right by the employees then the difference between the base market price and the enhanced or increased value shall be payable to the to the holder of such rights’ holder employees. – The scheme was administered through a trust. The Trust purchased shares of Religare from the Stock exchange at the time of granting of SAR to specified employees at an average price of Rs. 503/- per share. – The funding of such purchase was by way of loan given by respective companies whose employees to whom SAR were granted. – On exercise of the SAR by an employee, the trust sold the corresponding number of shares on the stock exchange and the amount realized was paid to the respective company in the settlement of the loan. – In addition to the SAR already granted to the employees, realisation of certain bonus shares were also paid to the employees as incentive. – The company retained Rs 140/- as value of the grant and paid to the employees – the amount which was the difference between the sale price of the shares at the time of exercise and SAR value of Rs. 140/- multiplied by the number of SAR exercised by the employee, after deducting tax at source. – The company claimed deduction under section 37 in the return of income of Rs 11,47,623 alongwith Rs 27,89,501 being bonus shares. – The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) disallowed an amount of Rs 11,47,623 as a capital loss. On appeal before the CIT(A), CIT(A) enhanced the disallowance by Rs. 27,89,501/- further as distribution of bonus incentive paid to the employees holding it to be a capital expenditure and therefore it is not allowable expenses.
ESOP Expenses allowable as a deduction considering market price at the time of exercise – ...
Apollo Tyres Ltd. v ACIT (ITA No. 223/Coch/2015 dated 10.01.2017) Deferred revenue expenditure allowed in year of incurring Facts: During the year, the assessee had claimed prepaid expenses amounting to Rs. 5,15,34,726 which comprises of – Insurance expense of Rs. 96,12,402/-, – Interest expenses of Rs. 1,54,19,700, – Rent expenses of Rs. 1,83,501/- and – General expenses of Rs. 2,63,19,123/- in the nature of employee mediclaim and other expenses. According to the A.O, the said expenses were not related to the income earned during the year under consideration and were therefore, disallowed. The DRP concurred with the findings of the Draft Assessment Order and held that the claim of deduction which does not pertain to the relevant accounting year distorts the income of that year. The assessee argued that the expenses included under the head prepaid expenses are revenue in nature. The said expenditure has not resulted in acquisition of a capital asset to the assessee and therefore, is an allowable deduction.
Deferred revenue expenditure allowed in year of incurring; Loss on sale of subsidiaries’ shares allowed ...
CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD v CIT [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4491-4493 OF 2004 dated 09.04.2015] SUPREME COURT Background: The assessee is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Its main object, as stated in the Memorandum of Association, is to acquire the properties in the city of Madras (now Chennai) and to let out those properties. The assessee had rented out such properties and the rental income received therefrom was shown as income from business in the return filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer held since that the income was received from letting out of the properties, it was in the nature of rental income and thus it would be treated as income from house property.
If earning rent income is the main object of a Company, it cannot be taxed ...
Garware Chemicals Ltd. v DCIT (IT APPEAL NO. 7819 (MUM.) OF 2010 dated 21.01.2015) Mumbai ITAT Background: The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of various Petro Chemical products. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed the deduction of Rs. 14 crore u/s 43B of Income Tax Act. The AO found that the claim of the assessee u/s 43B was in connection with the discharge of interest amount payable to IDBI amounting to Rs. 14 crore by way of conversion of the same into equity shares of the assessee company. The AO held that in view of the Explanation 3C of section 43B, the claim of the assessee is not allowable and accordingly rejected. The CIT(A) also did not accept the contention of the assessee and confirmed the disallowance made by Assessing Officer by following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of SRF Ltd. v. DCIT (34 SOT 1).
Allotment of equity shares in lieu of interest liability is a mode of payment allowable ...
M/s Eicher Motors Ltd v DCIT (ITA No.207 /Del /2013 dated 12.12.2014) – Delhi ITAT Background: The assessee incurred consultancy charges of Rs 20,36,319 for services rendered in relation to bid-cum-delisting of shares of Eicher Limited, a subsidiary company. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the said expenses were incurred for acquisition of the entire controlling interest in subsidiary company – Eicher Limited since the assessee was a promoter of the said subsidiary and also has business interest in it. It was, further, submitted that the assessee being a promoter of Eicher Limited and holding business interest in that company, decided to acquire entire control over that company and, consequently, made an open offer to the public share-holders to acquire their shares and delist Eicher Limited from Stock Exchange for which services of J M Morgan Stanley Pvt. Ltd [Merchant Banker] and ILFS Investments Securities Limited [Syndicate Member] were obtained. Pursuant to the delisting of shares of Eicher Limited [after acquisition of shares from public share-holders], Eicher Limited was amalgamated with the assessee w.e.f. 4.3.2008 pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation being approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. However, the AO disallowed the expenditure holding that the expenditure was capital in nature as the same was incurred in relation to acquisition of a new asset. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.
Expenditure incurred for acquisition of controlling stake in subsidiary is revenue in nature – Delhi ...
DCIT v M/s. Baljit Securities Private Limited /I.T.A No.1183/Kol/2012 (Kol ITAT) dated 21.10.14 Background: The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares on self account, derivative transactions and share broking activity. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has incurred it incurred net loss of Rs.2,16,75,441/- in purchase and sale of shares (delivery based loss of Rs.7,29,56,706 and non-delivery based profit of Rs.5,12,81,265). The assessee treated the entire activity of purchase and sale of shares which comprised of both delivery based and non-delivery based trading, as one, before application of the deeming provision contained in explanation to section 73 of the Act and accordingly, claimed set off of the loss incurred in delivery based trading with the profit derived from derivative trading. The AO applied explanation of Section 73 of the Act and denied the claim of set off of loss from dealing of shares with profit from F & O operations. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that share trading loss is to be allowed to be set off with the profits earned in derivative transactions. The Department filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A) order.
Explanation to section 73 to be applied after setting off share trading loss against derivative ...
Idea Cellular Ltd. v Addln CIT (ITA No 3260 & 3493 (MUM.) OF 2008 dated13.05.2014) – Mumbai ITAT Background: The assessee has incurred expenses on abandoned project of Rs. 3,94,75,619. The assessee was required to put up cell-sites for enabling its business. In certain cases the assessee had incurred expenses for putting up cellsites but this could not be completed and were therefore, abandoned. The assessee claimed that the expenses were incurred for the purpose of its business and, therefore, is allowable as business expenditure. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the expenditure has been spent by the assessee on sites to bring into existence the new asset and new source of income. Accordingly the AO held that the loss incurred due to abandonment of project, is capital in nature and accordingly disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) has concurred with the view of the AO and held that the expenses incurred on cell sites were definitely capital expenses, when such a project is abandoned, the entire expenditure incurred is a capital loss.
Expenditure on abandoned project (in relation to existing business) is allowable as revenue expenditure – ...
GE Energy Parts Inc v Addl DIT ITA No. 671/Del/2011 dated 04.07.2014 (Delhi ITAT’s interim order) Decision: Whether Re-assessment proceedings are valid: In the reasons recorded by assessing officer it was categorically stated that the information regarding the employees of GE in India prior to the present expats was not given by GE group. Assessing officer had recorded a finding that there had been the persons working for such sales through out the period 1-4-2000 to till date. This factual finding recorded by assessing officer was not objected to by the assessee while filing objections before assessing officer. It cannot be said that assessing officer had not made inquiries regarding the employees of GEIPL who were working for other GE entities. The assessee did not provide this information. In the back drop of these facts, now the department is seeking admission of Linkedin profiles of various employees which has been down loaded from the website and is available in public domain. On Admissibility of additional evidence: Section 254(1) provides that the Tribunal may, after giving both parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, “pass such orders therein as it thinks fit”. Section 255 deals with the procedure before the Appellate Tribunal in discharge of its powers and functions. On perusal of the above section, Tribunal has all the powers vested in it which are vested in the income-tax authorities with reference to section 131. The basic ingredient for exercising powers under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence is that Tribunal should come to the conclusion that a particular document would be necessary for consideration to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause. The document can be brought to the notice of Tribunal by either party. The Tribunal is final fact finding body and, therefore, the powers have been conferred on it u/s 131 and Rule 29 to enable it to record a factual finding after considering the entire evidence. For dispensation of justice wide powers have been given to Tribunal. On LInkedIN profiles: Ld. Sr. Counsel has submitted that Linkedin profiles is an hearsay evidence and has no probative value. In this regard ld. Sr. counsel has relied on two decisions of US courts. Further, Linkedin profiles is self appraisal of employees and, therefore, it is hearsay evidence. We are unable to accept this contention. Linkedin profiles is not in the nature of hearsay because it is the employee who himself has given all the relevant details and the same relate to him. These detalis are akin to admission made by a person. No third party is involved in creating of this Linkedin profiles and, therefore, it cannot be said to be an hearsay evidence. The Linkedin profiles are in the nature of admissions of persons on their job profile. The data is in pubic domain.