2007 (10) TMI 265 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee, civil contractor and builder entered into a development agreement with Bharat Kheta and others for development of business complex With a view to complete the project in time the assessee negotiated with the tenants and got them vacated by paying compensation such amounts paid to the tenants are allowable for deduction as revenue expenditure

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against common order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
2. Deduction claimed for compensation paid to vacate tenants
3. Revision notice under Section 154 and 263
4. Method of accounting and treatment of expenditure
5. Jurisdiction under Section 263 challenged

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the revenue against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, challenging the deduction claimed for compensation paid to vacate tenants. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and dismissed the revenue's appeals, holding that the revenue had accepted the method of accounting followed by the assessee in previous years and that the expenditure was claimed as revenue expenditure consistently.

2. The dispute arose when the Commissioner of Income Tax issued notices under Section 154 and 263 to revise the orders passed under Section 143(3) for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The assessee contended that the expenditure did not improve their title or create stock-in-trade, and the Commissioner held against the assessee, directing the revision of the orders. However, the Tribunal found that the expenditure did not enhance the assessee's title and was rightly claimed as revenue expenditure.

3. The Tribunal noted that the revenue failed to show any fault in the method of accounting followed by the assessee, who maintained consolidated accounts, not project-wise accounts. The Tribunal also emphasized that the revenue's attempt to change the treatment of the expenditure was inequitable, as it had been consistently accepted as revenue expenditure in previous assessments.

4. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the findings were not perverse, and no substantial question of law was involved in the appeals. The Court concluded that the Commissioner of Income Tax had wrongly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263, and therefore rejected the appeals filed by the revenue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the reasoning behind the decision of the High Court in rejecting the appeals.