2012 (9) TMI 1056 - AT - Income Tax

Allowing business expenses - there was no business in existence during the year as the assessee was debarred by SEBI to carry out business activities Tribunal rendered on similar issues in the case of sister concerns of the assessee company. As regards the issue involved in ground No.1 relating to existence of business, he has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s KNP Securities (P) Ltd. (2009 (5) TMI 840 - ITAT MUMBAI) to hold that the business of the assessee company was neither discontinued nor closed down and, therefore, the expenses incurred in relation to the said business were allowable as deduction. Head of income - under which head interest and miscellaneous income is assessable to tax in the hands of the assessee? - Held that - As the business had not closed and the claim of expenditure had to be allowed. Respectfully following the said decision of the tribunal we hold that the business of the assessee had not been closed in the relevant year and therefore FDRs had to be treated as pledged in connection with the business which was in existence and therefore the interest income had to be treated as incidental business income.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowance of business expenses when no business in existence.
2. Treatment of interest and miscellaneous income as business income.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue challenges the order of the CIT(A) allowing business expenses despite the absence of a business due to SEBI's debarment. The Tribunal, citing precedents, held that as the business was neither discontinued nor closed, the expenses were deductible. Relying on decisions like CIT vs. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd., the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

2. The second issue concerns the categorization of interest and miscellaneous income. The Tribunal referenced a case involving a similar scenario where SEBI debarred the assessee from share transactions but the business was not closed. Following the precedent set in that case, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the interest income as incidental business income. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on both issues. The Tribunal's rulings were based on established precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing the continuity of the business despite regulatory challenges. The judgment provides clarity on the treatment of expenses and income in situations where business operations are impacted by external factors like regulatory actions.