Year: 2009

Preeti Tex v. Income-tax Officer,

Ward-II(4), Coimbatore

A.Y. : 2003-04. Dated : 18-1-2008

S. 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act — Since debts could not
be recovered in spite of best efforts, whether assessee was entitled to
deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) — Held, Yes.

The assessee-firm had entered into a Cost, Insurance and
Freight (CIF) agreement with a certain Bangladeshi party for selling its
goods. When the goods reached Custom station of Benapole inside Bangladesh,
said party failed to pay for goods after having acknowledged receipt of goods
at Custom station. Therefore, the assessee claimed value of goods from foreign
buyer. Despite making an honest attempt to recover the said amount, the
assessee could not recover the same and, therefore, had written-off said
amount as bad debts in its books of account during the year and claimed
deduction of same u/s.36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer rejected its claim. On
appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that there was no evidence on the
part of the assessee to show as to what legal steps were taken by it against
the buyer or its bank to recover its money. He, therefore, rejected the
assessee’s claim.

On second appeal : the ITAT held that :

(1) Under a CIF contract, seller is required to insure
the goods; to deliver them to the shipping company; to arrange for
affreightment; and to send the bill of lading and insurance policy together
with invoice and a certificate of origin to a bank.

(2) The documents are usually delivered by the bank
against the payment of price or against the acceptance of the bill.

(3) The property in the goods passes on to the buyer on
the delivery of documents. In the instant case, it was not disputed that the
buyer had got the delivery of documents.

(4) In a CIF contract the buyer has got to accept the
documents and to pay the price, even if the goods are destroyed or lost. In
that case, he has the remedy against the insurer to recover the loss.

(5) The whole documents the assessee relied upon had
clearly proved the completed wholesome CIF contract and the assessee had
taken an honest decision as contemplated on the part of the duty of the
seller. The insurance was perfectly made. All requirements of CIF contract
were satisfied. Therefore, the assessee could not be faulted with
transaction. As per the C&F terms, the goods were sold and the fact that the
goods had reached the Custom station was not at all disputed.

(6) The fact that the goods were lost or destroyed in a
fire at the Custom port in Bangladesh was also not disputed. Under the above
circumstances, the amounts were due under two of the invoices for goods sold
on C&F terms and the goods were exported on C&F terms after fulfilling all
the conditions for entering into C&F contract, the goods were covered by
transit insurance arranged by the buyer.

Under the above facts and circumstances, in spite of honest
efforts made by the assessee, the debts could not be recovered and in view of
the honest decision of the assessee the book debts were written-off for the
previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. Therefore, the
claim of the assessee was to be allowed.

Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. v. ACIT
(Chennai)

A.Y. : 2004-05. Dated : 31-10-2007

S. 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Whether S. 80-IA(2)
gives an option to assessee to claim relief u/s.80-IA for any 10 consecutive
assessment years out of 15 years beginning from year in which undertaking or
enterprise develops or begins to operate any infrastructure facility, etc.,
and it does not mandate that first year of 10 consecutive assessment years
should be always first year of set-up of enterprise — Held, Yes — Whether
provision of S. 80-IA(5), treating eligible undertaking as a separate sole
source of income, is applicable only when assessee chooses to claim deduction
u/s.80-IA and same cannot be applied to a year prior to the year in which
assessee opted to claim relief u/s.80-IA for first time — Held, Yes.

The assessee-company had started three power projects, two
in the previous year, relevant to the A.Y. 1996-97 and one in the previous
year, relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000. In respect of the profits of
these power units, the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80-IA for the first time
in the A.Y. 2004-05. The Assessing Officer held that while computing the gross
total income of the eligible units, the notional brought forward loss incurred
by those units in earlier years had to be taken into account first and after
that, if any remaining profit was available then the deduction u/s.80-IA had
to be given.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of
the Assessing Officer. On second appeal, the ITAT held that :

(1) S. 80-IA gives an option to the assessee to claim
relief under this section for any 10 consecutive assessment years out of 15
years beginning from the year in which the undertaking or enterprise
develops or begins to operate any infrastructure facility, etc.

(2) S. 80-IA(2) does not mandate that first year of 10
consecutive assessment years should be always the first year of set-up of
enterprise.

(3) The provision of S. 80-IA(5) is applicable only when
the assessee chooses to claim deduction u/s.80-IA and if it has not chosen
to claim the deduction u/s.80-IA, S. 80-IA(5) cannot be made applicable.

(4) In the instant case, there was a categorical finding
by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) that the first year
claimed by the assessee was from the A.Y. 2004-05. Hence, the initial
assessment year could not be the year in which the undertaking commenced its
operations but it was the assessment year in which the assessee had chosen
to claim deduction u/s.80-IA. Therefore, there was no question of
setting-off notionally carried forward unabsorbed depreciation or loss of
earlier years against the profits of the units and the assessee was entitled
to claim deduction u/s.80-IA on the current assessment year’s profit.

Indus Motor Co. Ltd. v. ACIT

A.Y. : 1998-99. Dated : 24-1-2007

Whether if application filed by assessee for additional
time for removing the defect in the return u/s.139(9), is not disposed of or
no action is taken and if Assessing Officer remains silent then time asked for
by assessee would be treated as granted by Assessing Officer — Held, Yes.

The assessee-company filed its return of loss on
30-11-1998, but it could not attach the statutory audit report with it.
Consequently, the Assessing Officer issued letter to the assessee asking it to
rectify said defect. On receipt of the letter, the assessee filed application
requesting for extension of time till 5-3-1999 for filing the audit report as
per the deficiency letter. However, there was no communication from the
Assessing Officer in response to the said application of the assessee.
Subsequently, the assessee filed another return of loss on 5-3-1999 revising
the loss. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) but the
said loss was refused to be carried forward and set-off in future on the
ground that the assessee had filed its revised return of loss after the due
date. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order.

On second appeal, the ITAT held that :

1. As per the provisions of S. 80, if the return of
income is not filed as provided u/s.139(3) the loss determined shall not be
carried forward and allowed to be set-off under the relevant provisions.

2. S. 139(9) provides that if the return furnished by the
assessee is defective then the AO may intimate the defect to him and give
him an opportunity to rectify the defect within a period of 15 days or
within such further period on an application made by the assessee as the
Assessing Officer in his discretion may allow.

3. In the instant case, the assessee filed an application
requesting for further period to rectify the defect. It had requested the AO
for time up to 5-3-1999 to file the return. It was the duty of the AO to
dispose of the application filed by the assessee, either granting the
additional time or refusing the same. But the AO did not act on the said
application.

4. If the application filed by the assessee for
additional time is not disposed of or no action is taken and if the
Assessing Officer remains silent, then time asked for by the assessee would
be treated as granted by the Assessing Officer.

5. Another aspect to be considered was that if it was not
a valid return, then how the assessment was framed u/s.143(3). The returns
filed by assessee on 30-11-1998 as well as on 5-3-1999 were valid returns
and there was no bar to carry forward determined loss as per S. 80.

ACIT v. S. Prabhakar Kamath

A.Ys. : 1995-96 to 1998-99

Dated : 30-4-2007

Whether as per S. 26, any income which is chargeable under
head ‘Income from house property’ is to be assessed in hands of co-owners if
their shares are ascertainable and such income cannot be taxed in hands of AOP — Held,
Yes.

The assessees, four individuals, purchased a plot of land
and thereafter constructed a commercial complex thereon. Each co-owner had
equal undivided share in the entire property. A part of the said complex was
given on rent. The assessees filed their individual returns separately, in
status of co-owners and showed the rental income under the head ‘House
property’. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s.148 to the assessees
stating that there was an AOP in existence and income from the commercial
complex was chargeable to tax in the hands of the AOP. Accordingly, the rental
income had been taxed as business income in the hands of the AOP. On appeal,
the Commissioner (Appeals) held that since share of all members was equal,
rental income should be assessed in the individual hands of the co-owners as
per S. 26.

On Revenue’s appeal, the ITAT observed that :

(1) It was an admitted position that rental income from
the property had been assessed in the hands of the individual co-owners upto
the A.Y. 1994-95.

(2) When the revenue had taken a stand that rental income
upto the A.Y. 1994-95 was assessable in the hands of individual co-owners,
then it could not take a different stand for the subsequent years,
particularly in view of S. 26. As per S. 26, any income which is chargeable
under the head ‘Income from house property’ is to be assessed in the hands
of co-owners if their shares are ascertainable and such income cannot be
taxed in the hands of the AOP.

Hence, rental income in question chargeable under the head
‘Income from house property’ was to be taxed in the individual hands of the
co-owners.

Skyline Caterers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

A.Y. : 2003-04. Dated : 28-12-2007

S. 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Expression ‘any other
business or commercial rights of similar nature’ appearing in clause (ii) of
S. 32(1) would include such rights which can be used as a tool to carry on
business — Assessee entitled to claim depreciation on amount paid for
acquisition of all rights under catering contract.

The assessee entered into an agreement with ‘R’ on
16-8-2000 for taking over the catering contract of ‘R’ with HLL against a
consideration of Rs.27 lakhs. Out of the said sum, the assessee paid a sum of
Rs.25 lakhs to ‘R’ as a consideration for acquiring all the rights under the
catering contract between ‘R’ and HLL and balance sum of Rs.2 lakhs was paid
to ‘R’ for not competing with the assessee. The assessee treated the said
amount of Rs.27 lakhs in its balance sheet as goodwill and claimed
depreciation thereon treating the same as commercial rights acquired by it.
The Assessing Officer held that depreciation is admissible only on know-how,
patents, copyrights, trade marks, etc. He further held that the expression
‘similar nature’ in S. 32(1)(ii) would not include goodwill. He, therefore,
disallowed the assessee’s claim for depreciation. On appeal, the Commissioner
(Appeal) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.

On second appeal, the ITAT held that :

(1) The nomenclature given to the entries in the books of
account is not relevant for ascertaining the real nature of the transaction.
The nature of transaction should be ascertained on the basis of the
agreement between the parties. Therefore, merely because the assessee showed
the said payment on account of goodwill in the books of account, no adverse
inference could be drawn against the assessee.

(2) The payment of Rs.25 lakhs was specifically made for
acquiring all the rights under the catering contract between ‘R’ and HLL and
for acquiring articles and paraphernalia belonging to ‘R’, which were lying
in the canteen. Hence, it could not be said that the payment was either on
account of goodwill or on account of not to compete with the assessee.

(3) The specific intangible assets referred to in S.
32(1)(ii) are followed by the expression ‘any other business of commercial
rights of similar nature’. The specific words in the above section reveal
the similarity in the sense that all the intangible assets specified are
tools of the trade, which facilitate the assessee carrying on the business.
Therefore, the expression ‘any other business or commercial rights of
similar nature’ would include such rights which can be used as a tool to
carry on the business. Since catering business at HLL canteen could be
carried on only with the help of such rights under the contract, the
assessee would be entitled to depreciation.

Dy. CIT v.

Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd.

A.Y. : 2000-01. Dated : 15-2-2008

S. 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Whether amendment by
Finance Act, 2000 in provision of S. 80-IB(10) extending period for completion
of eligible projects to 31-3-2003 was made with effect from 1-4-2001
apparently because as per pre-amended provisions, such period was prescribed
up to 31-3-2001 and date of 1-4-2001 given as an effective date for said
amendment cannot be read in a manner to say that same was applicable only for
and from A.Y. 2001-02 — Held, Yes.

The assessee-company was engaged in the business of
development of mini-townships, construction of house property, villas,
commercial complexes, etc. For the A.Y. 2000-01, the assessee’s claim for
deduction u/s.80-IB(10) in respect of profits derived from a housing project,
was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had
not produced the completion certificate in respect of the said project as
evidence of completion by 31-3-2003, as required by the Section. On appeal,
the Commissioner (Appeals), relying upon the Occupation certificate submitted
by the assessee as additional evidence, allowed the assessee’s claim for
deduction u/s.80-IB(10).

On 2nd appeal, the revenue raised a new plea that the date
of completion of project as earlier prescri-bed in S. 80-IB(10) as on
31-3-2001 was extended to 31-3-2003 by the Finance Act, 2000 only with effect
from 1-4-2001 and hence the benefit of extended date for completion of project
in order to make it eligible for deduction u/s.80-IB was not available to the
assessee for the assessment year 2000-01.

The ITAT observed that :

(1) As is clearly evident from the Explanatory note to
the Finance Bill, 2000, the purpose of amendments made by the Finance Act,
2000 in the provisions of S. 80-IB(10) was to extend the benefit available
under the said provisions even to the housing projects which would be
completed up to 31-3-2003 as against the period up to 31-3-2001 specified
earlier.

(2) The period of commencement of the said projects in
order to become eligible for benefits of S. 80-IB(10) was also
simultaneously specified as up to 31-3-2001 as against the period earlier
prescribed as on or after 1-10-1998, which clearly means that the intention
of the Legislature was to give the benefit of extended period of completion
to all the projects which had already commenced on or after 1-10-1998.

(3) The interpretation given by the Revenue may also lead
to absurd results in the cases of assessees following two different methods
of accounting to recognise the income derived from the projects eligible for
benefit u/s.80-IB. In a case where the assessee follows a project completion
method, he will be able to avail the benefit of S. 80-IB in respect of
entire profits of the projects completed after 31-3-2001 but before
31-3-2003, whereas the assessee following percentage completion method would
be able to avail the said benefits in respect of profits of the project
completed after 31-3-2001 but before 31-3-2003 only to the extent of profit
declared on percentage completion method in the A.Y. 2001-02 and subsequent
year and lose that benefit on the profits of the very same project declared
on percentage completion method in the A.Ys. 1999-2000 and 2000-01.

(4) It is a well-settled canon of construction that in
construing the provisions of beneficial Legislation, the Court should adopt
the construction, which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act
rather than the one, which would defeat the same and render the benefit
illusory.

Based on the above observations, the ITAT held that the
amendment in the provision of S. 80-IB(10) extending period for completion of
eligible projects was made with effect from 1-4-2001 apparently because as per
pre-amended provision such period was prescribed up to 31-3-2001 and the date
of 1-4-2001 given as an effective date for the said amendment cannot be read
in a manner to say that the same was applicable only for and from A.Y. 2001-02
and the subsequent years. Therefore, the benefits of the amended provisions of
S. 80-IB(10) would be available in A.Y. 2000-01 even to the projects completed
within the extended period, i.e., 31-3-2003.

Nicholas Applegate South East Asia Fund Ltd. v. Asst. DIT
(International Taxation)

ITA No. 3875 (Mum.) of 2005

A.Y. : 2001-02. Dated : 23-1-2009

S. 292B r.w. S. 80, S. 139(1) and S. 139(3) — Assessee
company having filed four returns in respect of its four units correctly
disclosing all relevant information without causing any prejudice to Revenue,
such mistake or defect stood removed by operation of S. 292B and consolidated
revised return filed by assessee will relate back to the date of filing of
original returns entitling the assessee to claim carry forward and set off of
loss as claimed in original returns and consolidated in revised returns.

The assessee is a company incorporated in Mauritius under
the Protected Cells Companies Act having four cells/sub-divisions in India.
For the relevant assessment year, it filed separate returns of income in
respect of each cell in India within the time limit prescribed u/s.139(1)
showing short term capital loss and exempt dividend income. Subsequently, the
assessee realised that a consolidated return for all the four divisions was
required to be filed and, accordingly, it filed a revised return incorporating
the incomes/losses of the four divisions. The Assessing Officer treated the
original four returns as invalid and treated the consolidated revised return
as the original return and, since the same was not filed within the time
prescribed u/s.139(1), disallowed the assessee’s claim for carry-forward of
short term capital loss. The CIT(A) allowed the loss to be carried forward.

Since there was a difference of opinion between Members of
the Tribunal, the matter was referred to the Third Member. The Third Member
also held in favour of the assessee. The Third Member relied on the decisions
in the following cases :

(a) Swaran Kanta v. CIT, (1989) 176 ITR 291 (P&H)

(b) CIT v. K. Saraswathi Ammal, (1984) 39 CTR
(Mad.) 35/(1984) 146 ITR 486 (Mad.)

(c) Shirish Madhukar Dalvi v. ACIT, (2006) 203 CTR
(Bom.) 621/(2006) 287 ITR 242 (Bom.)

The Third Member noted as under :

(1) As per Circular No. 179 dated 30th September 1975 of
CBDT, S. 292B has been made to provide against purely technical objections
without substance coming in the way of the validity of assessment
proceedings. It is clear from the language of S. 292B that its aim is to
prevent any return of income, assessment, notice or other proceedings being
treated as invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in
such return of income, assessment, notice, other proceedings which are in
substance and effect in conformity with and according to the intent and
purpose of this Act. Substance over form theory is the underlying philosophy
of S. 292B. If in substance and in effect, the return, notice or assessment
is in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of the Act, the
mistake, defect or omission is to be ignored.

(2) If significance of words ‘substance’ and ‘effect’ is
kept in mind, there is no justification to take the four returns separately
and in not considering them together. All the four returns were filed at the
same time with the same Assessing Officer and signed by the same competent
and authorised person. When the total effect of all the four returns is
taken into account, it is clearly found that the assessee did disclose full
information of total loss in time as was needed by the Revenue to compute
assessee’s income/loss. The Revenue has not pointed out any information
needed but not given in the four returns submitted by the four cells.

(3) There was a mistake in filing four returns instead of
one consolidated return of total loss of the assessee company. However, that
mistake, otherwise rendering the returns invalid, is fully taken care of by
provisions of S. 292B.

(4) Four cells of the assessee, by filing four returns,
in which total loss claimed by the assessee was disclosed, did comply in
substance and in effect with the intent and purpose of the Act. It is
nobody’s case that any prejudice was caused to the Revenue because of the
above defect and mistake.

(5) In such a situation, it is not correct to hold that
returns filed earlier were invalid, ineffective and of no legal consequence.
The revised return would, in such circumstances, relate back to the date of
filing of original return. The said return has to be taken along and
considered with the original four returns which contained complete
information for making an assessment. The technical mistake in the four
returns stood removed on filing of the consolidated return. To ignore date
of four returns is to ignore provisions of S. 292B.

The assessee was, therefore, entitled to carry forward such
losses for setting off the same in the subsequent year in terms of the
provisions of S. 80.