9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1276 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance on account of Revenue Recognition - Held that - The finding of the CIT (A) is that the assessing officer simply by rejecting the method of accounting followed by the assessee is not proper since assessments have been completed in other group cases based on the same accounting method - there was force in the finding of the CIT (A) for the reason that since the assessing officer rejected the method of accounting followed by the assessee but he accepted the same method of accounting followed by group companies of the assessee, which is contrary as per law - The assessing officer has not given a clear finding mandated under section 145(3) of the Act and yet re-computed the profit from the projects done by the assessee company - The additions made by the assessing officer are not supported by any facts and figures which can demonstrate that the method of accounting policy adopted by the assessee company resulted in under estimation of profit - The assessing officer has taken estimated revenue from the projects without considering the fact that whether the units are sold or not - In other words, profit is being estimated on unsold stock also - the method followed by the assessee company cannot be called as an unreasonable method and any change in the method would only be tax neutral - Thus there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) as the same has been passed by the CIT (A) after analyzing and examining the issue elaborately. Disallowance of Reimbursed Expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 Held that - In case of reimbursement of common expenses incurred by the parent company for the benefit of group concerns, there is no need to deduct tax at source, and disallowance could not be made by invoking the provisions of S.40(a)(ia) Following Linklaters LLP V/s. ITO 2010 (7) TMI 535 - ITAT, MUMBAI from the details of the expenditure incurred, which were reimbursed by the assessee to M/s. Ambience Properties P. Ltd., it is seen that the expenses related to various items like office rent, electricity charges, salaries, staff welfare, conveyance, telephone charges, vehicle maintenance, printing and stationery, computer expenses etc. Therefore, the expenditure incurred cannot be treated as rent alone to bring it within the ambit of S.194I of the Act also the assessee has produced sufficient material to prove that the amount represented reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by M/s. Ambience Properties Ltd. - there was no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of revenue recognition. 2. Disallowance of reimbursed expenditure under S.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Revenue Recognition The primary issue revolves around the deletion of an addition of Rs.16,31,487 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of revenue recognition. Facts: - The assessee is engaged in real estate development and construction. - The assessee recognized revenue using the percentage completion method, based on the cost incurred to date relative to the total estimated cost. - The AO found that the assessee had recognized revenue at Rs.7,07,92,872/- instead of Rs.7,24,24,359/-, leading to an alleged understatement of Rs.16,31,487. - The AO argued that the assessee should recognize revenue at 41.83% of the projected sales, considering the conditions of 30% cost incurrence and sales booking were met. Assessee's Argument: - The assessee contended that revenue recognition should only apply to confirmed sales and not to unsold stock. - It was argued that the accounting policy adhered to the ICAI's Guidance Note on revenue recognition for real estate developers. - The assessee cited the case of another group company, M/s. Omega Shelters P. Ltd., where a similar accounting method was accepted. CIT(A)'s Decision: - The CIT(A) found the method of accounting employed by the assessee to be consistent with industry standards and not unusual. - The CIT(A) noted that the AO had no concrete evidence to prove that the assessee's method led to suppressed or underestimated income. - The CIT(A) relied on the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Hyderabad's decision in the case of M/s. Omega Shelters P. Ltd., which upheld a similar accounting method. ITAT's Analysis: - The ITAT confirmed that the assessee's consistent accounting method should not be disturbed mid-project as it would distort financial results. - The ITAT referenced its previous decision in M/s. Omega Shelters P. Ltd., which supported the assessee's method of revenue recognition. - The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, rejecting the AO's addition of Rs.16,31,487. Conclusion: The ITAT concluded that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition made by the AO, affirming the assessee's method of revenue recognition. Issue 2: Disallowance of Reimbursed Expenditure under S.40(a)(ia) The second issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs.15 lakhs reimbursed expenditure by the AO under S.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. Facts: - The assessee utilized office accommodation and infrastructure provided by its sister concern, M/s. Ambience Properties Ltd., and paid Rs.15 lakhs as reimbursement. - The AO treated the payment as rent, requiring tax deduction under S.194I, and disallowed it due to non-deduction of tax. Assessee's Argument: - The assessee argued that the payment was a reimbursement of various expenses, not just rent. - The expenses included electricity, salaries, staff welfare, conveyance, and vehicle maintenance. - The assessee provided a detailed chart and Balance Sheet of M/s. Ambience Properties Ltd. to support the claim. CIT(A)'s Decision: - The CIT(A) held that the reimbursement did not constitute income for M/s. Ambience Properties Ltd. and thus did not require tax deduction. - The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify if there was any markup over actual expenses and disallow only the marked-up portion, if any. ITAT's Analysis: - The ITAT examined the expenditure details and found that they included various items beyond rent. - The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A) that the reimbursement did not fall under S.194I. - The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as the reimbursement was substantiated with sufficient material. Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, rejecting the AO's disallowance of Rs.15 lakhs under S.40(a)(ia). Final Judgment: The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues.
|
