2018 (10) TMI 1022 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenses incurred prior to the commencement of commercial operation - allowable busniss expenses u/s 37 - whether the assessee has commenced its business commercially or not? - Held that - As per the AO the business did not commence during the previous year, therefore, no expense incurred by the assessee can be allowed in the year under consideration. The view taken by the AO was subsequently confirmed by the CIT(A). From the preceding discussion, we find that the business of the assessee was setup during the year under consideration. This submission of the assessee has not been challenged by any of the lower authority. Therefore, we can draw a conclusion that the business of the assessee was setup in the year under consideration meaning thereby, it was ready for commercial operation. We also note that in the immediate succeeding assessment year the assessee has shown in its books of accounts the income from the business. Therefore, we hold that the business of the assessee was set up during the year. Accordingly the assessee was eligible for deduction of the expenses incurred by it during the year under consideration. In the case in hand, we note that the assessee has recruited the employees and incurred the salary expenses therefore, the ratio laid down in the preceding orders are squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Therefore, respectfully following the same we reverse the order of authorities below. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of ?7,05,341/- as business expenditure.
2. Classification of interest income from fixed deposits as income from other sources.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of ?7,05,341/- as Business Expenditure:
The primary contention of the assessee was that the expenses of ?7,05,341/- incurred on traveling, salaries, and wages should be allowed as business expenditure. The assessee argued that these expenses were incurred after the business was set up but before the commencement of commercial operations. The assessee relied on the judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd and the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai bench in the case of Deccan Goldmines Ltd. Vs. ACIT, to support its claim.

The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] disallowed the expenses, stating that the business had not commenced its commercial operations as per the audit report. Therefore, the expenses incurred prior to the commencement of commercial operations could not be allowed as deductions.

Upon appeal, the tribunal noted that the business of the assessee was set up during the year under consideration, which was not disputed by the lower authorities. The tribunal referenced the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in the case of Reliance Gems and Jewels Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's decision in Omniglobe Information Tech India Pvt. Ltd., which distinguished between the setting up of a business and the commencement of business. The tribunal concluded that since the business was set up and the assessee incurred expenses for employees' salaries, the expenses were deductible. Thus, the tribunal reversed the disallowance of ?7,05,341/- and allowed the appeal.

2. Classification of Interest Income from Fixed Deposits as Income from Other Sources:
The AO categorized the interest income of ?6,85,650/- from fixed deposits under the head "income from other sources," which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee had already shown this interest income under the head "income from other sources" and argued that the lower authorities' finding that it was offered under "business income" was erroneous.

The tribunal upheld the classification of the interest income as "income from other sources," agreeing with the lower authorities' decision. The tribunal found no error in this classification and dismissed the relevant grounds of appeal.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of ?7,05,341/- as business expenditure, recognizing that the business was set up during the year and the expenses were deductible. However, it upheld the classification of the interest income from fixed deposits as "income from other sources." The final decision resulted in the appeal being partly allowed in favor of the assessee.