9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (6) TMI 475 - AT - Income TaxCapital or Revenue Expenditure - Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. (2008 -TMI - 30864 - HIGH COURT DELHI) - Held that - nature of expenses were renovation of rental premises by having false ceiling fixing tiles replacing glasses wooden partitions replacement of electric wiring earthing replacement of GI pipes etc - the expenditure incurred by the assessee in the present case is revenue expenditure and has to be allowed as a deduction Regarding disallowance of bad debt - In the present case the Assessing Officer has not disputed that the debts have in fact been written off as bad and irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F.Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010 -TMI - 76626 - SUPREME COURT) - Accordingly decided in the favour of the assessee Regarding disallowance of reimbursement of expenses to the parent company - Invoice clearly mentions the fact that it is recharge of cost incurred by the parent company - Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2008 -TMI - 32211 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) - Held that reimbursement of expenses cannot be the subject matter of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act - In the result appeal by the assessee is partly allowed The necessary approval from Reserve Bank of India had been obtained and the amount was utilized for the purpose of clearing the outstanding liabilities that the assessee had and to meet its overhead expenses - In the result appeals by the Revenue are dismissed while appeal by the assessee is partly allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of renovation expenses as capital or revenue expenditure. 2. Allowability of bad debt deduction. 3. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS on reimbursement to the parent company. 4. Allowability of foreign exchange fluctuation loss. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Renovation Expenses as Capital or Revenue Expenditure: Facts and Arguments: - The assessee incurred Rs. 30,94,066/- on renovation of leasehold premises. - The assessee argued these were revenue expenses necessary for maintaining global standards and efficient business operations. - The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these as capital expenses, citing Explanation 1 to section 32 of the Act, and allowed only depreciation. - The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating the expenditure brought enduring benefits and was capital in nature. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal noted the expenses did not involve construction or renovation of the building but were for creating a better working environment. - The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Empire Jute Co. Ltd., emphasizing that not all enduring benefits are capital in nature. - The Tribunal allowed the expenses as revenue expenditure, supporting the assessee's claim that they facilitated efficient business operations without altering the capital structure. 2. Allowability of Bad Debt Deduction: Facts and Arguments: - The assessee wrote off Rs. 87,02,583/- as bad debt, which had been offered as income in earlier years. - The AO disallowed the claim, stating the assessee failed to prove the debts had become bad. - The CIT(A) allowed the claim for Vijay Industries but upheld the disallowance for the other two debts. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in T.R.F. Ltd., which clarified that post-amendment, it is sufficient if the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts. - The Tribunal allowed the entire bad debt deduction, stating the AO's requirement to prove the debt had become bad was unnecessary. 3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for Non-Deduction of TDS on Reimbursement to Parent Company: Facts and Arguments: - The assessee reimbursed Rs. 1,17,26,209/- to its parent company for insurance and WAN facility expenses. - The AO disallowed the amount under section 40(a)(i), arguing it was "other sums chargeable under this Act" and the assessee failed to deduct TDS. - The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, questioning the evidence of reimbursement. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal found the AO accepted the payments as reimbursements but incorrectly applied section 40(a)(i). - The Tribunal cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, holding reimbursements are not taxable. - The Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance, affirming the payments were reimbursements and not chargeable to tax. 4. Allowability of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss: Facts and Arguments: - The assessee reported a net exchange loss of Rs. 3,94,711/- due to professional fees, insurance premiums, and WAN facility, offset by a gain on ECB loan. - The AO disallowed the gross exchange loss, arguing the liability had not arisen in the assessment year. - The CIT(A) allowed the net exchange loss, following the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's earlier years. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Woodward Governor India P. Ltd., which allowed foreign exchange losses on current account as deductible. - The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the net exchange loss as a deductible expense. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claims regarding renovation expenses and bad debt deductions, and directed the deletion of disallowances under section 40(a)(i) related to reimbursements. The Tribunal also upheld the allowability of foreign exchange fluctuation losses, thereby dismissing the revenue's appeals and partly allowing the assessee's appeal.
|
