S.J.V.N. Ltd., Shimla V. Addl. CIT, Shimla

ITA 583/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6492 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SOOD
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Benefit of exemption; TDS
• Section: 115JB; 40(a)(ia); 80IA

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , () BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 583/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S S.J.V.N. LTD. (FORMERLY SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD.), HIMFED BUILDING, NEW SHIMLA (HP). . THE ADDL. CIT, SHIMLA RANGE, SHIMLA. PAN NO: AAICS1307F APPELLANT RESPONDENT & ITA NO. 596/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA. M/S S.J.V.N. LTD. (FORMERLY SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD.), HIMFED BUILDING,NEW SHIMLA (HP). : AAICS1307F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ! ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOOD ' ! REVENUE BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTI, CIT-DR # $ % DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2019 &'() % DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.02.2019 (*/ ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE ARE THE CROSS-APPEALS, ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE OTHER BY THE REVENUE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA (HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT[A] )DATED 22.03.2012 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS, HENCE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE B EING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA-583 & 596/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 11 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL HAS TAKEN SO MANY GROUNDS AN D SUB- GROUNDS, OUT OF WHICH FOLLOWING ISSUES ARISE: I. COMPUTATION OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME AS PER NORMAL PROVISIONS II DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT ON THE FOLLOWING (I) INTEREST FROM EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS RS. 5763604/- (II) MACHINERY HIRE CHARGES OF RS. 2989865/- AND RENT RECOVERED FROM STAFF RS. 2404593/- (III) PROFIT ON SALE OF ASSETS RS. 1115530/- (IV) MISCELLANEOUS INCOME DERIVED FROM RENTS FROM TRANSIT CAMPS, OTHER RECOVERIES FROM EMPLOYEES, RECEIPTS FROM BUSES RS. 1397668/- (V) INSURANCE CLAIM RS. 231898830/- (VI) SALE OF FORMS RS. 8 LACS III INCIDENTAL EXPENDITURE ALLOWED ONLY @ 2% AS AGAINST 5% CLAIMED ON INTEREST INCOME IV. COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB ON A) ADVANCE AGAINST DEDUCTION DEPRECIATION B) ADDITION OF 8.57 CRORES AND 50.13 CRORES TO THE BOOK PROFITS ON ACCOUNT OF UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY. C) ADDITION OF RS. 46089897/- TO BOOK PROFITS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON ARBITRATION AWARDS. 3. THE FIRST GROUND/ISSUE IS RELATING TO THE DISAL LOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'). IN RESPECT OF THE INTER EST AND OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHILE MAKING/CREDITING THE AFO RESAID PAYMENTS TO PAYEES. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE O F ITA-583 & 596/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 3 OF 11 EXPENDITURE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS AO) W HICH HAS BEEN FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 4. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH COULD NOT CONVINCE US ABOUT THE NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON T HE AFORESAID AMOUNT, HOWEVER, THE ONLY SUBMISSION OF T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT IS THAT TH E ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT IN THE SHAPE OF ALLOWANCE OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TDS HAS BEEN D EDUCTED ON THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO FA IRLY AGREED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE ALLOWANCE OF E XPENDITURE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. IN VI EW OF THIS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITH THE OBSERVA TION THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO CLAIM THE AFORES AID EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TDS HAS BEEN D EDUCTED. 5. VIDE GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INCOME RECEIVED O N VARIOUS COUNTS. FIRST IS THE INTEREST FROM EMPLOYEES AND D IRECTORS OF RS. 5763604/-. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THIS INCOME HAS NOT ACCRUED FROM THE MANUFACTURING/GENER ATION OF ELECTRICITY ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE SO THIS ALL OWANCE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. SECOND ISSUE IS REGARDING INCOME FROM MACHINERY HIRE CHARGES AND RENT RECOVERED FROM STAFF. THIS INCOME IS ALSO APPARENTLY NOT RELATED TO MANUFACTURING/GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, NO IN TERFERENCE IS ITA-583 & 596/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 4 OF 11 REQUIRED ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. SIMILARLY THE PROFIT F ROM SALE OF ASSETS OF RS. 11,15,530/- IS NOT LINKED TO THE MANUFACTURING/GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN RIGHTLY DISALLOWE D BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY. 7. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE OR DER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF DENIAL OF CLAIM U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF MISCELLANEOUS INCOME FROM REN T FROM TRANSIT CAMPS AND OTHER RECOVERIES FROM EMPLOYEES A ND RECEIPTS FROM BUSES ETC., THE SAME DOES NOT LINK TO THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SOLE I SSUE PRESSED UPON BY THE COUNSEL UNDER THIS HEAD IS REGA RDING THE INSURANCE CLAIM OF RS. 23,18,98,830/-. THE LD. COU NSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID CLAIM RECEIVED FROM IN SURANCE COMPANY WAS IN VIEW OF THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF ASSETS. THAT THE AFORESAID LOSS HAS ALREADY BEEN BOOKED AS EXPENDITURE IN THE EARLIER YEARS, TH EREFORE, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION TO INDEMNIFY TH E LOSS IS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE RESTORE THIS I SSUE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE TO THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON ACCOUNT OF LOS S OF TRADING ASSETS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN BOOKED AS AN EXPENDITURE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. IF IT IS FOUND S O, THEN TO ALLOW THE INSURANCE CLAIM TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE I NCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF BENEFIT U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THIS G ROUND IS, ACCORDINGLY, PARTLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. ITA-583 & 596/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 5 OF 11 8. THE NEXT CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RE GARDING INCOME FROM SALE OF FORMS WHICH ADMITTEDLY IS NOT RELATED TO THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE D O NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DENYING THE AFORESAID CLAIM. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INCIDENTAL EXPENDITURE INCUR RED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING OF INTEREST INCOME FROM THE BANK S. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE GENERATES HUGE INTEREST INCOME FROM THE BANKS FOR W HICH CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES SUCH AS EMPLOYMENT OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES ETC. IS INCURRED, THEREFORE, A REASO NABLE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT/GENERATING INTEREST INCOME FROM THE BANK S IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED AS AN EXPENDITURE. LD. COUN SEL HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOW ED 5% OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS INCIDENTAL EXPENDITURE IN THE P REVIOUS AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, HOWEVER, IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY 2% OF THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BE EN ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, IN OUR VIE W THE ALLOWING OF EXPENDITURE ON CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF BA NK INTEREST DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A CORRECT AND PROPER M ETHOD FOR THE SAME. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSIT IS MADE TO THE BANK, SAME EFFORT IS TO BE MADE IRRESPE CTIVE OF THE QUANTUM OF THE INVESTMENT I.E. WHETHER IT IS R EGARDING THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 1 LAC OR RS. 10 CRORES, SUBJECT TO A VERY FEW ITA-583 & 596/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 6 OF 11 ADDITIONAL FORMALTIES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE CALCULATIONS GI VEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR MAK ING DEPOSITS WITH THE BANK AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE A FR ESH HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE MANPOWER AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE USED FOR THE SAME AND ALSO THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENDITURE BEING INCU RRED IN THIS RESPECT. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE IS RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS. 515.45 CR INTO THE BOOK PROFITS AND THEREBY ASS ESSING THE SAME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 515.45 CR WAS INFACT ADVANCE AGAINST DEPRECIATION WHICH THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEA RS HAD BOOKED UNDER THE HEAD SALES. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENT LY IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NHPC VS CIT 320 ITR 374 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE SAME IS NOT A RESERVE OR INCOME ACCRUED, RATHER THE ADVANCE AGAINST DEPRECIATION IS THE INCOME RECEIVED IN ADVANCE WHICH IS SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT IN FUTURE. THE ASSESSEE RECTIFIED ITS ACCOUNTS AND ACCORDINGLY, DELETED/TAKEN BACK THE SAME FROM THE HEAD INCOME/SA LES INCOME AND CLAIMED THAT THE SAME IS NOT INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF NHPC. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIE W THAT SINCE THE AFORESAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEBITED FROM TH E BOOK PROFITS WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN BOOKED AS SALES IN T HE EARLIER YEARS WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWABLE, HENCE HE TAKEN UP TH IS ITA-583 & 596/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 7 OF 11 AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 12. NOW THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY BOOKED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE E ARLIER YEARS, HENCE, BY WAY OF AN ACCOUNTING ENTRY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN REDUC ED FROM THE BOOK PROFITS AS THE TAXES HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE AFORESAID AMOUNT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, HAS MADE SOME OBSERVA TIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO TAKE UNDUE BENEFIT O F THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F NHPC (SUPRA) BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED T O RECTIFY ENTRIES IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS IN WHICH SALES WERE BOOKED AND THAT THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE IN REVISING THE EN TIRE AMOUNT DURING THE CURRENT YEARS BOOK PROFIT WAS NOT JUSTI FIED. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN O UR VIEW, EVEN IF WE GO BY THE ANALOGY ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A), IT WILL RESULT INTO COMPLICATED AND MULTIPLIED ASSESSMENT O F DIFFERENT YEARS WHEREAS THE NET EFFECT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WILL REMAIN THE SAME. ADMITTEDLY, TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BOOKED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT AS INCOME I N THE EARLIER YEARS AND HAS PAID THE DUE TAXES; IF THE SA ME IS REDUCED IN THE RESPECTIVE YEAR, SAME WILL HAVE BEAR ING ON THE NEXT YEAR. HENCE, INSTEAD OF MAKING ADJUSTMENT ONE BY ONE IN EACH OF THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE MADE THE REQUISIT E ENTRY IN THE CURRENT YEAR. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION OF ALLOWAB ILITY OF THE ITA-583 & 596/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 8 OF 11 AFORESAID CLAIM IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE ON DEPRECIAT ION, IN OUR VIEW IS REQUIRED TO BE LOOKED INTO BY THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE NATURE OF THE INCOME RECEIVED AND APPLY THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NHPC OR ANY OTHER CA SE LAW AS MAY BE AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME. HOWEVER, IF THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND ALLOWABLE, THEN TO REDUCE THE IN COME FROM THE BOOK PROFITS OF THE CURRENT YEAR AS PER OUR OBS ERVATIONS MADE ABOVE. 14. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REGARD ING ADDITION OF RS. 8.57 CR, RS. 50.13 CR AND RS. 4.60 CR MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY. T HE LD. COUNSEL, IN THIS RESPECT HAS SUBMITTED DISPUTE WAS GOING ON OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE OTHER PARTIES BEFORE THE A RBITRATOR. THERE WERE ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION, HOWEVER, THE EXACT QUANTUM WAS NOT DETERMINED. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE BOOKED THE SAID AM OUNTS AS LIABILITY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THE AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR, THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS HAD BEEN ADJUSTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ARBITRATION AWARD. WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FI LE OF THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE AFORESAID LIABILITY HAS BEEN PAID/ADJUSTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, IF FOUND COR RECT, THEN TO ALLOW CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA-583 & 596/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 9 OF 11 15. NOW COMING UP TO THE REVENUES APPEAL. REVENUE HAS TAKEN THREE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE A O TO TREAT RS. 1.62 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF CATCHMENT AREA TREATM ENT EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE EXPENSES. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 04.08.2015 IN ITA 1309/2012 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH AND THE TRIBUNAL AFTER RELYING UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS I NCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO. VS CIT 124 ITR 1, THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT FIND REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) IN IDENTICAL FACTS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE RE LEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 10. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT CAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR MAINTAINING THE ENVIRONMENT AND AFFORESTAT ION OF THE CATCHMENT AREA OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS AN OPERATIONAL PROJECT, TO MI NIMIZE SILT EROSION. THE EXPENDITURE IS VITAL FOR THE CONTINUED POWER-GENERA TION BY ANY HYDRO-POWER GENERATING COMPANY. IT IS INCURRED ON LAND NOT OWNE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS INCURRED EVERY YEAR. NO TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE ASSE T COMES INTO EXISTENCE BY VIRTUE OF THIS EXPENDITURE. ALL THESE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED AND HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE FACTS THAT THE CAT EXP ENDITURE IS RELATED TO CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT I S AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PROFIT EARNING PROCESS. MOREOVER THE EXPENDITURE HAS NOT R ESULTED IN THE ACQUISITION OF ANY TANGIBLE/ INTANGIBLE ASSET. THE EXPENDITURE THE REFORE IS REVENUE IN NATURE. MERELY BECAUSE THE EXPENDITURE RESULTS IN ENDING BENEFIT I S NOT ENOUGH TO CATEGORIZE IT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD, VS. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) WHEREIN THE COURT HAS HELD : II. THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE EXPENDITURE, EVEN IF INCURRED FOR OBTAINING AN ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING BENEFIT, MAY, NONE THE LES , BE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT AND THE TEST OF ENDURING BENEFIT MAY BREAK DOWN. IT IS NOT EVERY ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING NATURE ACQUIRED BY AN ASSESSE E THAT BRINGS THE CASE WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THIS TEST. W HAT IS MATERIAL TO CONSIDER IS THE NATURE OF THE ADVANTAGE IN A COMMER CIAL SENSE AND IT IS ONLY WHERE THE ADVANTAGE IS IN THE CAPITAL FIELD TH AT THE EXPENDITURE WOULD BE DISALLOWABLE ON AN APPLICATION OF THIS TEST. IF THE ADVANTAGE CONSISTS MERELY IN FACILITATING THE ASSESSEES TRADING OPERA TIONS OR ENABLING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS T O BE CARRIED ON MORE EFFICIENTLY OR MORE PROFITABLY WHILE LEAVING THE FI XED CAPITAL UNTOUCHED, THE EXPENDITURE WOULD BE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT, EVEN T HOUGH THE ADVANTAGE MAY ENDURE FOR AN INDEFINITE FUTURE. THE TEST OF EN DURING BENEFIT IS, THEREFORE, NOT A CERTAIN OR CONCLUSION TEST AND IT CANNOT BE APPLIED BLINDLY ITA-583 & 596/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 10 OF 11 AND MECHANICALLY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PARTICULAR F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A GIVEN CASE. WE DO NOT THEREFORE FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 16. SINCE THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF THE TRIBUNAL, HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO IN TERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 2 17. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE HAS AGITATED THE I SSUE IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT RS. 1,19,62,353/- ON ACCO UNT OF WRITE BACK OF PROVISIONS OF LEAVE SALARY AND PENSI ON AS INCOME ELIGIBLE U/S 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. WE FIND THAT THE LEAVE SALARY AND PENSION ETC. ARE THE EXPENDITU RES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTLY RELATIN G TO THE RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS. THEREFORE, LD . CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE WRITE BACK OF THE PROVISION S FOR THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION U/S 80IA OF THE I.T. ACT. 18. GROUND NO. 3 IS RELATING TO THE EXCESS PROVISIO NS WRITTEN BACK FOR STORES OF RS. 398,890/-. PROVISIO NS FOR STORES IS RELATING TO THE TRADING ASSETS OF THE ASS ESSEE HENCE, ANY EXCESS PROVISIONS WRITTEN BACK WILL ALSO CONSTI TUTE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OPE RATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. NO OTHER POINT OR GROUND IS PRESSED. IN VIEW O F THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. ITA-583 & 596/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 11 OF 11 20. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED WHEREAS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMMEDIATELY ON COMPLETION OF HEARING ON 19/02/2019 . SD/- SD/- ( $ % & '# ) ( ) ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG ) () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , / JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM *'+ ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. ** # / CIT 4. ** # /01 THE CIT(A) 5. -245*%*456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:$ GUARD FILE *'+ # / BY ORDER ; ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR