9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 852 - AT - Income TaxNature of interest paid on borrowed funds - to be capitalized or allowed as deduction - section 36(1)(iii) - held that - in view of decision of apex court in Core Healthcare Ltd. (2008 -TMI - 3024 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) decided in favor of assessee. Deferred revenue expenditure - Treatment of expenses int eh books of assessee - held that - the deferred revenue expenditure is essentially revenue in nature and the decision to treat the same as deferred revenue only represents a management decision taken in view of the magnitude of the expenditure involved. For the purpose of allowability of any expenditure under the Act what is material is the classification between the capital and revenue and the same does not recognise any concept of deferred revenue expenditure. - As far as the entries in the books of account are concerned it is well settled that they do not clinch the issue either way and are not determinative of the allowability or otherwise of the expenditure. The decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971 -TMI - 6262 - SUPREME Court) and in the case of CIT v. India Discount Company Limited (1969 -TMI - 5158 - SUPREME Court) are clear on the issue. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of various expenses treated as deferred revenue expenditure. 3. Disallowance of deduction under section 35D of the Act. 4. Addition of unexplained deposits. 5. Disallowance of remuneration paid to Managing Director. 6. Disallowance of entertainment expenses. 7. Disallowance of professional fees. 8. Discrepancy in total addition made for deferred revenue expenditure. Analysis: 1. Deduction of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii): The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the interest expenditure capitalized in the books but claimed as revenue expenditure in the computation of income. The CIT(A) allowed the claim based on previous ITAT orders. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Core Healthcare Ltd. which established that the purpose of borrowing is irrelevant for section 36(1)(iii); the borrowing must simply be for business purposes. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed. 2. Disallowance of Various Expenses Treated as Deferred Revenue Expenditure: The A.O. disallowed expenses including advertisement, employment cost, and others, treated as deferred revenue in the books but claimed as revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) deleted most disallowances except for stores and spares and lab charges. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that deferred revenue expenditure is an accounting concept not recognized by the Act. The Tribunal remanded the issue of stores and spares and lab charges to the CIT(A) for further clarification. 3. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 35D: The A.O. restricted the deduction under section 35D, which the CIT(A) allowed based on previous ITAT decisions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the ITAT's consistent stance in earlier years that amortization of preliminary expenses is permissible. 4. Addition of Unexplained Deposits: The A.O. added new unsecured loans/deposits due to lack of PAN and confirmations. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that these amounts were received in earlier years and merely transferred in accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting the revenue's failure to provide contrary evidence. 5. Disallowance of Remuneration Paid to Managing Director: The A.O. disallowed excess remuneration paid to the Managing Director. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance based on subsequent recovery of excess payment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Delhi High Court's ruling that approved remuneration by the Company Law Board cannot be challenged under section 40A(2) of the Act. 6. Disallowance of Entertainment Expenses: The A.O. estimated higher entertainment expenses than claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance, finding the A.O.'s estimate excessive. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the absence of any infirmity in the estimate. 7. Disallowance of Professional Fees: The A.O. disallowed professional fees as pre-operative expenses. The CIT(A) directed the A.O. to verify if the fees were for an existing project and allow them as revenue expenditure if confirmed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this direction and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. 8. Discrepancy in Total Addition Made for Deferred Revenue Expenditure: The assessee claimed an excess disallowance of Rs. 1,29,06,675. The Tribunal noted the issue did not arise from the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the ground, suggesting the assessee seek rectification from the A.O. Conclusion: The appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 were dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal's decisions were heavily based on consistency with previous rulings and the Supreme Court's interpretation of relevant legal provisions.
|
