9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of whether expenditure on increasing authorized share capital is capital or revenue expenditure, and eligibility for amortization of expenditure fee under section 35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Interpretation of Expenditure on Share Capital Increase: The case involved a public limited company increasing its share capital from Rs. 1.30 crores to Rs. 8 crores, paying Rs. 1,00,500 as fees to the Registrar of Companies. The Income-tax Officer initially deemed this as capital expenditure, rejecting the claim for deduction under section 35D(2)(c)(iv). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this view, stating the expenditure was incurred to increase share capital and thus capital in nature. The Tribunal, while agreeing the expenditure was capital, allowed the claim under section 35D(2)(c)(iii) for amortization. The High Court, citing Supreme Court precedents, affirmed that such expenditure is capital in nature, directly related to expanding the company's capital base, and hence not eligible for revenue treatment. Eligibility for Amortization under Section 35D(2)(c)(iii): Regarding the Revenue's query on entitlement to amortization under section 35D(2)(c)(iii), the Tribunal referred to Schedule X of the Companies Act, 1956, specifically item 3 which pertains to fees for filing a notice of increase in nominal share capital. The Tribunal concluded that this additional fee is a registration fee on the difference between nominal and increased share capital, covered by item 3. However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing the conceptual distinction between registration of a company and increasing share capital. It clarified that fees under item 3 are not for registering a company but for filing a notice of share capital increase, thus not falling under section 35D(2)(c)(iii). Consequently, the High Court ruled against the assessee on this issue, in favor of the Revenue. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the capital nature of expenditure on increasing authorized share capital, following Supreme Court precedents. It also clarified that fees for filing a notice of share capital increase do not qualify for amortization under section 35D(2)(c)(iii), based on the conceptual distinction between company registration and share capital increase. The references were disposed of accordingly.
|
