2012 (12) TMI 758 - AT - Income Tax

Short Notice Pay for Termination of Toll Manufacturing Agreement Capital vs Revenue Expenditure Held that - The test of commercial expediency cannot be reduced to the shape of a ritualistic formula, nor can it be put in a water-tight compartment. All that the law requires is that the expenditure should not be in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee and it should be wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the business. It is well-settled that items of expenditure are to be considered from the point of view of a normal, prudent businessman. Business expediency was not established by the assessee at any stage of hearing, including hearing before us, for making payment to CCL in violation of the agreement. If sanctity of agreement can be ignored for the sake of argument, even then the vital question of establishing business expediency remains unanswered. In the case under consideration there is neither any danger of dent to the goodwill of the assessee nor adverse affect was looming large over the business carried on by the assessee-breach of agreement was not by the assessee. If CCL without giving stipulated notice terminated the agreement, then goodwill of the CCL would have been at stake. If any step for maintaining confidence had to be taken then that step had to be of CCL. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that if the AO could not find nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose of the business in the said transaction, he was justified. Business expediency was not established by the assessee at any stage of hearing, including hearing before us, for making payment to CCL in violation of the agreement. If sanctity of agreement can be ignored for the sake of argument, even then the vital question of establishing business expediency remains unanswered. - order of AO is upheld Appeal by assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- paid towards "Short Notice Pay for termination of Toll Manufacturing Agreement" and its classification as neither revenue expenditure nor capital expenditure.
2. Whether the payment made by the assessee to Colour Chem Ltd. (CCL) should be treated as deductible revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the I.T. Act.
3. In the alternative, whether the payment should be treated as capital expenditure and if depreciation on the same should be allowed.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- as neither revenue expenditure nor capital expenditure:
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- incurred by the assessee on the grounds that it was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. The AO observed that the compensation paid by the assessee was not for the termination of the Toll Manufacturing Agreement (TMA) but for shifting the assets taken over from CCL. The AO concluded that the compensation was in the nature of capital expenses and not revenue expenses. The AO also noted that the termination of the agreement was initiated by CCL due to its amalgamation and not by the assessee, hence the assessee was not liable to pay any compensation.

2. Whether the payment should be treated as deductible revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the I.T. Act:
The assessee argued that the payment of Rs. 2.20 Crores was made wholly and exclusively for business purposes and should be allowed as deductible revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the I.T. Act. The assessee referred to various clauses in the agreement and relied on several case laws, including SA Builders, Nainital Bank Ltd., and Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd., to support its claim. However, the Tribunal found that the payment made by the assessee to CCL was not for business purposes as the termination was due to CCL's amalgamation and not initiated by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the expenditure did not meet the criteria of being wholly and exclusively for business purposes as defined under Section 37 of the I.T. Act.

3. Alternative claim for treating the payment as capital expenditure and allowance of depreciation:
The assessee alternatively submitted that if the payment was not treated as revenue expenditure, it should be considered as capital expenditure, and depreciation on the same should be allowed. The Tribunal, however, upheld the AO's decision that the payment was not for the termination of the agreement but for shifting the assets and employees. The Tribunal concluded that the payment did not qualify as capital expenditure eligible for depreciation as the expenditure was not incurred for acquiring any capital asset but was related to the termination of the agreement due to CCL's amalgamation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the AO's decision to disallow the expenditure of Rs. 2,20,00,000/-. The Tribunal concluded that the payment made by the assessee to CCL was neither a deductible revenue expenditure under Section 37 nor a capital expenditure eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal emphasized that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and was related to the termination of the agreement due to CCL's amalgamation.