The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, has delivered a detailed consolidated ruling in the long-running tax litigation between the JCIT, Special Range, Panaji and Chowgule & Company Private Limited. The order deals with several important issues concerning mining, depreciation, Section 14A, withholding tax, business expenditure, mining lease renewal, dumping conversion charges and commercial expediency.
A significant issue before the Tribunal concerned stamp duty of approximately ₹35.03 crore paid for execution of documents for renewal of existing mining leases for 20 years. The Assessing Officer had treated the expenditure as capital in nature on the basis that mining leasehold rights constituted a capital asset. The CIT(A), however, allowed the expenditure as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)’s view. It noted that the payment was not a lease premium, royalty or consideration for acquiring fresh mining rights. It was stamp duty paid under statutory requirements for execution of documents relating to renewal of existing mining leases. The renewal period was 20 years and the assessee was already carrying on mining operations under the existing rights.
The Bench relied, among other authorities, upon CBDT Circular No. 22 dated 23 June 1943, which provides that legal expenses incurred in connection with renewal of a lease for a period of less than 50 years may be allowed as an admissible deduction. It also referred to judicial precedents including CIT v. Panyam Cements & Mineral Industries Ltd., CIT v. Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd., Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. India Mica Supply Co. Ltd. and CIT v. Gotan Lime Syndicate.
The Tribunal distinguished the earlier Panaji Tribunal ruling in ACIT v. Bandekar Brothers (P.) Ltd. and observed that the jurisdictional Bombay High Court precedent and other relevant decisions had to be followed. It ultimately held that the stamp duty merely facilitated continuation of the assessee’s existing mining business and did not result in acquisition of a new capital asset. Accordingly, the expenditure was held allowable as revenue expenditure.
The order also addresses several other substantial issues. Depreciation on the Todou plant was allowed on the principle that where part of the plant and machinery forming the relevant block of assets was used, depreciation on the block could not be denied merely because the wet-processing section remained temporarily shut.
On Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s finding that interest disallowance was not warranted where sufficient interest-free funds were available. It further sustained directions restricting the Rule 8D computation to appropriate investments, including dividend-yielding investments, and held that the disallowance could not exceed exempt income.
The Tribunal also upheld deletion of disallowance relating to demurrage payments connected with FOB export contracts. It found that such amounts represented adjustments to the sale consideration between the assessee and foreign buyers and that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source merely because demurrage adjustments arose under the export arrangements.
Business advances written off as irrecoverable were also accepted where they had been given to suppliers and service providers in the ordinary course of business and did not relate to acquisition of capital assets. Likewise, contributions made towards repair and widening of public roads used for the assessee’s business were treated as revenue expenditure since no ownership or capital asset accrued to the assessee.
In relation to education and training expenditure incurred on family members of directors who were employees of the company, the Tribunal found that the expenditure had commercial nexus with the business where the persons underwent managerial and business training and continued to serve the company thereafter. The fact of relationship with directors, by itself, was held insufficient to justify disallowance.
For expenditure on construction or repair of temples and similar community facilities, however, the Tribunal partly accepted the Revenue’s case and sustained 15% of the expenditure, considering that an element of donation or social responsibility could not be completely ruled out.
The Tribunal further upheld deductions relating to compensatory afforestation expenditure, certain consultancy payments to non-residents, obsolete stock written off, ship dry-docking and repair expenses, higher depreciation on eligible commercial vehicles and depreciation on energy-saving devices. It also deleted the addition of ₹1.43 crore relating to alleged unaccounted cash receipts involving Trimurti Exports, noting, among other things, the absence of established unaccounted transactions and the denial of an opportunity for cross-examination.
Another important finding concerned dumping conversion charges paid under the Government of Goa policy regulating mining dumps on Government and private land. The Tribunal held that the payment was a statutory charge connected with existing mining operations and was not characterised by the policy as a penalty. It therefore upheld its treatment as revenue expenditure.
For Assessment Year 2016-17, depreciation on goodwill arising from an earlier amalgamation was allowed on the written-down value in accordance with earlier judicial decisions in the assessee’s own case. The Tribunal also upheld deletion of interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), while restricting the disallowance of foreign travel expenditure to 10% instead of 20%.
In the final result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15 and 2016-17 were partly allowed, the Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 was dismissed, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 was allowed, while the connected cross-objections were either dismissed or partly allowed depending on the assessment year.
[…] Click to view […]