2009 (1) TMI 140 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee-company engaged construction business was converted into a public limited company AO disallowed a sum out of head office expenses and made an addition of 10 % of the amount as estimated profit on contract receipt on ground that some expenditure of the Madras head office should be allocated for the project work for determining the profit CIT (A) deleted the disallowance made out of HO expenses and addition made of 10 % towards estimated profit on ground that it was another form of depreciation which has already been considered once ITAT rightly upheld CIT s order

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of head office expenses and addition of estimated profits on contract receipts.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of Rs. 17,31,850 from head office expenses and the addition of 10 per cent. of the same as estimated profit on contract receipts. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses as he believed the head office controlled the project, and thus, some expenses should be allocated for project work to determine profits.

2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance of head office expenses and also the addition made towards estimated profit on contract receipts. The Commissioner viewed the addition as a double deduction, as it was another form of depreciation that had already been considered once. The Department then appealed to the Tribunal, which held that the allocation of expenses to the project would not affect income determination, as the net effect would be at one place, making the addition unnecessary.

3. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, stating that no interference was needed with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s conclusion. The court heard arguments from both sides and reviewed the case materials. The Revenue argued that a previous judgment by the court was relevant to the current case, citing CIT v. S. I. Property Development Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 601.

4. Referring to the previous judgment, the court found that since the assessee had consistently followed a method accepted by the Department in earlier years, it would be unfair to change the method for the current year. The court upheld the assessee's method and answered the question in favor of the assessee, similar to the previous case involving disallowance of overhead expenses attributable to an incomplete project.

5. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, based on the consistent method followed by the assessee and the precedent set by the previous judgment involving similar issues.