2018 (1) TMI 235 - AT - Income Tax

Administrative expenses disallowance - business of the company was not set up during the year under consideration - Held that - We find that during the impugned assessment year, assessee has not recognized any revenue as income for the year. He however claimed substantial amount of expenditure under different heads. Certain expenditures were allowed by the CIT(A) in order to keep the company alive but other administrative expenses claimed by the assessee were disallowed as no evidences were filed. Having carefully examined the order of the CIT(A), find that CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in detail in his order. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Capitalization of Site Administrative Expenditure and Legal and Professional Fees.
2. Disallowance of Deduction on Interest Expenditure Beyond 12% Interest Rate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Capitalization of Site Administrative Expenditure and Legal and Professional Fees:

The primary issue in dispute was whether the business of the appellant could be said to have been set up during the year under consideration, specifically considering that no revenue was generated from the business activities claimed to have been carried out by the appellant. The AO observed that the appellant had not generated any revenue from its real estate development activities during the year under consideration, concluding that the business had not been set up and consequently disallowed the claim of expenditure made in the Profit & Loss account.

The appellant contended that the company had made advance purchases of land and entered into an MoU for land purchase, arguing that the business should be considered set up in the year ending 31.03.2011. The CIT(A) re-examined the issue, noting that the appellant had taken definite steps for the acquisition of land, and relying on judicial decisions, held that the business of the appellant was set up during the relevant year. Consequently, the appellant was found eligible to claim deductions for the expenses incurred during the year, subject to certain observations.

The CIT(A) observed that the appellant had incurred expenditure of ?85,24,700/- under various heads, including Employee benefit expenses, Finance cost, Depreciation and Amortization, and Other expenses. The CIT(A) found that some of these expenses were directly linked to the project and should have been capitalized. Specifically, the Site Administrative expenditure of ?28,14,140/- and Legal and Professional Fees of ?4,700/- were deemed capital in nature and required to be capitalized as part of the project cost. Other expenses, such as employee benefits and certain legal and professional charges, were found to be revenue in nature and were allowed as deductions.

2. Disallowance of Deduction on Interest Expenditure Beyond 12% Interest Rate:

The appellant challenged the AO's arbitrary disallowance of interest expenditure beyond a 12% interest rate, contending that the AO had not provided any basis for the market rate of interest of 12%. The CIT(A) agreed with the AO's contention that the interest rate should be restricted to the market rate of 12%, considering that the interest was paid to group concerns. Consequently, the AO was directed to allow a deduction of ?4,66,780/- out of the interest payment of ?6,18,150/- and other interest costs of ?1,570/-.

Conclusion:

The CIT(A) concluded that the business of the appellant was set up during the year under consideration, allowing the appellant to claim deductions for certain expenses. However, some expenses were required to be capitalized as part of the project cost. The AO was directed to compute the loss after making disallowances for the expenses as discussed. The loss so determined was allowed to be carried forward to the succeeding years. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed.

← Previous Next →