2005 (1) TMI 84 - HC - Income Tax

Expenses such as stationery, printing, books and periodicals, general expenses, miscellaneous expenses, advertisement expenses, application fee, etc., - Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal directing disallowance of 25 per cent. of the amount on the ground that these expenses could not be capitalized - Submission of the assessee was that the expenditure incurred for certain items such as stationery, printing, books, periodicals, general was not capitalised and hence the finding on that issue needs to be set aside and the case be remanded for fresh look on this issue. We find no merit in this submission. - issue in regard to this expenditure whether taken as deferred revenue expenditure or capitalised expenditure was expressly gone into by the Assessing Officer in his order and accordingly benefit to the extent of Rs. 40,000 as deferred revenue expenditure and 75 per cent as capitalised expenditure was extended. This was then upheld up to the Tribunal. In this view, the challenge on this issue really does not survive, as being entirely confusing or misconceived in nature.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of capitalised amount by the Assessing Officer.
2. Justification of disallowance of 25% of the capitalised amount.
3. Material evidence for the entire amount capitalised by the assessee.
4. Nature of various expenditures claimed by the assessee.
5. Taxation of expenditure for acquiring technical knowledge.
6. Utilisation of disallowed amount for plant/machinery.
7. Capitalisation of expenditure incurred prior to the commencement of business.
8. Claiming deferred revenue expenditure.
9. Challenge regarding non-capitalisation of certain expenses.
10. Review and amendment of questions framed for appeal.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the disallowance of 1/4 of the capitalised amount by the Assessing Officer, arguing that the expenses were already claimed under deferred revenue expenditure. The court found that the expenses were not capitalised under this head and upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal justified the disallowance of 25% of the capitalised amount by the Assessing Officer as it was not utilized for bringing into existence the plant/machinery. The court found no fault in this decision and upheld the approach of the taxing authorities, as it did not involve any substantial question of law.

3. The court examined whether there was material evidence to support the entire amount capitalised by the assessee. The Assessing Officer exercised discretion based on the lack of adequate material provided by the assessee, leading to the denial of 25% of the capitalisation. The court upheld this decision, stating that the Assessing Officer's discretion was not arbitrary or illegal.

4. The nature of various expenditures claimed by the assessee was scrutinized, focusing on the capitalisation of expenditure incurred prior to the commencement of business. The court emphasized that only certain types of expenditure for bringing into existence enduring assets could be capitalized, and upheld the decision of the taxing authorities.

5. The court analyzed the taxation of expenditure for acquiring technical knowledge under section 35AB, finding that the Assessing Officer correctly allowed the deduction in relation to the incurred expenditure. This decision was upheld as it complied with the provisions of the Income-tax Act.

6. The justification for disallowing a portion of the capitalised amount for not being utilized for plant/machinery was examined. The court upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal, stating that it was well-founded and did not warrant interference.

7. The court addressed the capitalisation of expenditure incurred prior to the commencement of business, emphasizing the need for expenditure to be incurred for bringing into existence enduring assets. The decision to deny 25% of the capitalisation was upheld, considering the lack of adequate material provided by the assessee.

8. The claiming of deferred revenue expenditure was reviewed, with the Assessing Officer exercising discretion to limit the deduction based on the available material. The court upheld this decision, stating that it did not involve any substantial question of law.

9. A challenge regarding the non-capitalisation of certain expenses was raised, arguing for a fresh look at the issue. The court found no merit in the submission, stating that it was a factual matter and had already been addressed by the Assessing Officer.

10. The court reviewed and amended the questions framed for the appeal to ensure clarity and proper understanding of the real controversy. It examined each issue raised by the assessee and found them to be without merit, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

← Previous Next →