9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 331 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Nature of Expenditure Capital Expenditure OR not - web site development expenses - order u/s 263 was passed setting aside the order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax - Held that - In view of the nature of expenses, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the expenditure in question is in the revenue field Following CIT vs. Indian Visit.Com Pvt.Ltd. 2008 (9) TMI 8 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Expenditure on development of web site with a view to disseminate information about assessee s business activities amongst its clients is revenue expenditure even though resulting in enduring benefit. - Decided in favor of assessee. Assessee was capitalizing the expenditure in the earlier years - Held that - Applying project completion method does not mean that the expenditure which is not claimed in the current year, becomes a capital expenditure. In fact project completion method comes into play only when the expenditure is in the revenue field. Otherwise, it would have been called capital work-in-progress. The difference between project completion method and percentage completion method is the year of allowability of expenditure and the year of booking of income. - Decided in favor of assessee. Revision u/s 263 is not correct - CIT is wrong to direct the AO to treat the entire expenditure of Rs.9,49,039/- as capital in nature and disallow the same.
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of Expenditure: Revenue vs. Capital 2. Adherence to Section 263 Directions 3. Allowability of Expenditure in Respective Years 4. Depreciation on Capital Expenditure Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Expenditure: Revenue vs. Capital The primary issue was whether the expenditure of Rs.94,49,039/- incurred by the assessee for developing the insurance portal "Assure India.Com" should be classified as capital or revenue expenditure. The assessee argued that these expenses were revenue in nature, incurred over various assessment years (2000-01 to 2003-04), and should be written off as business losses when the project was abandoned. The Assessing Officer, however, classified these expenses as capital expenditure and disallowed them, adding the amount to the total income. The Tribunal examined the nature of the expenses, which included salaries, rent, travelling, and other operational costs. It referred to the Delhi High Court decision in CIT vs. Indian Visit.Com Pvt. Ltd., which held that expenses incurred on developing a website for disseminating information are revenue in nature, even if they provide an enduring benefit. The Tribunal concluded that the expenses listed were indeed in the revenue field and should be allowed as such. 2. Adherence to Section 263 Directions The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had issued an order under Section 263, directing the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of the expenditure and decide the issue afresh. The Tribunal noted that the CIT's directive was not to treat the expenditure as capital by default but to verify its nature. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) misinterpreted the Section 263 order by automatically classifying the expenditure as capital without proper verification. 3. Allowability of Expenditure in Respective Years The assessee argued that if the project completion method was not accepted, the expenditure should be allowed in the respective years it was incurred. The Tribunal clarified that adopting the project completion method does not convert revenue expenditure into capital expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized that the project completion method pertains to the timing of expense recognition and income booking, not the nature of the expenditure. Therefore, the expenses should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the year of project completion. 4. Depreciation on Capital Expenditure The assessee alternatively argued that if the expenditure was treated as capital, depreciation at 60% should be allowed. However, since the Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was revenue in nature, this argument became moot. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the expenditure of Rs.94,49,039/- incurred for developing the "Assure India.Com" portal was revenue in nature. The Tribunal directed that these expenses be allowed as revenue expenditure in the assessment year 2003-04, the year of project completion. The Tribunal also clarified that the misinterpretation of the Section 263 order by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) was incorrect, and the expenses should not have been disallowed as capital expenditure.
|
