2011 (4) TMI 556 - HC - Income Tax

Expenditure incurred on issue of shares (public issue expneses) - Assessee has made a claim under section 35D of the Act on the ground that the expenditure incurred was in respect of public issue expenses which was in respect of expansion of his business. The assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the company was incorporated on 19.4.1976 whereas the public issue was made in the financial year 31-03-1995 relating to the assessment year 1995-96 and the public issue expenses claimed is not as per section 35D which deals only with preliminary expenses - CIT(A) and ITAT have allowed the deduction u/s 35D - Held that - Deduction of such expenditure is not allowable u/s 35D - Decided against the assessee. Payment of bonus - violation of section 40A(9) - whether the amount transferred to the trust was allowable as a deduction even though no such deduction was allowable under section 40A(9) - Held that - The payment was made by the assessee through an irrevocable trust. The question which to be seen is whether the deduction was allowable as laid down in section 40A(9). In fact section 40A reads as the provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act relating to the computation of income under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . Therefore it cannot be said that section 40A(9) has no relevance after the insertion of section 43B w.e.f.1.4.1984. - Decided against the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of share issue expenses for deduction under Section 35D of the Income-tax Act.
2. Compliance with Section 40A(9) regarding payment of bonus into an employees' bonus trust.
3. Compliance with Section 43B regarding the timing of bonus payments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Share Issue Expenses under Section 35D:

The primary issue was whether the expenditure incurred on the issue of shares is eligible for deduction under Section 35D of the Income-tax Act. The assessee claimed 1/10th of public issue expenses under Section 35D, arguing that these expenses were related to the expansion of the company. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, citing the Supreme Court decision in Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that such expenses are capital in nature and not revenue expenditures. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the Assessing Officer's decision, and the Tribunal upheld this reversal, noting that similar claims had been allowed in previous years without appeal from the Revenue.

However, the High Court concluded that the expenditure on issuing shares to expand the company is capital expenditure and not deductible under Section 35D. The Court emphasized that the assessee did not provide sufficient materials like vouchers or receipts to substantiate the actual expenditure incurred. The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. General Insurance Corporation, which reiterated that expenses incurred to increase share capital are capital expenditures. Thus, the High Court affirmed the Assessing Officer's original decision, rejecting the assessee's claim under Section 35D.

2. Compliance with Section 40A(9) Regarding Bonus Payments:

The second issue was whether the payment of bonus into an employees' bonus trust violates Section 40A(9) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee argued that the payment was made to comply with Section 43B and should be considered as constructive payment to employees. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that Section 40A(9) does not exempt bonus payments to a trust. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal reversed this decision, relying on the ITAT decision in Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. The Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd., which held that payment to an irrevocable trust amounted to actual payment of bonus.

The High Court, however, found that Section 40A(9) is an overriding provision and does not allow deductions for payments to a trust unless specifically exempted. The Court noted that the Tribunal and the appellate authority did not adequately consider the merits of the case or the applicability of Section 40A(9). The High Court concluded that the payment to the trust did not qualify for deduction under Section 40A(9) and reversed the decisions of the lower authorities.

3. Compliance with Section 43B Regarding Timing of Bonus Payments:

The third issue was whether the payment of bonus into an employees' bonus trust within the due date for filing the return complies with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act. The assessee contended that the payment to the trust was made to comply with Section 43B, which allows deductions for actual payments made before the due date for filing tax returns. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, arguing that Section 40A(9) overrides Section 43B and does not permit such payments.

The High Court reiterated that Section 40A(9) is an overriding provision and that deductions under Section 43B must comply with the limitations set by Section 40A(9). The Court found that the payment to the trust did not meet the criteria for deduction under Section 40A(9) and, therefore, could not be allowed under Section 43B either. The High Court concluded that the payment did not constitute sufficient compliance with Section 43B and upheld the disallowance of the deduction.

Conclusion:

The High Court allowed the Revenue's appeals, holding that the expenditure on issuing shares is not deductible under Section 35D, and the payment of bonus into an employees' bonus trust does not comply with Sections 40A(9) and 43B. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific provisions of the Income-tax Act and the overriding nature of Section 40A(9) in determining the eligibility for deductions.

← Previous Next →