2018 (10) TMI 1491 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of expenditure - legal and professional charges paid to Reach (Registration, Evaluation, authorization and Restrictions of Chemicals) which is the European Regulatory Authority - revenue or capital expenditure - Held that - In the instant case, the assessee has also incurred similar type of expenses for marketing his product in European Countries after getting the certification from Reach and after making the necessary payment to the said association as well as making the payment to the firm who assisted for the registration in the Reach. Both the expenses are correlated with each other. These expenses are revenue in nature and in this regard. Disallowance of 4/5 professional charges paid to M/s. Avalon Consulting - Held that - There should not be split of revenue expenses accepted some exceptional cases such as amortization etc. The concept of advertisement expenses is also similar to the study mentioned above for the future purpose mentioned above related to the existing business of the assessee. The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. (2007 (1) TMI 147 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) and Cox & Kings (2011 (9) TMI 1175 - ITAT MUMBAI) has allowed the claim of the assessee in similar circumstances. Thus claim of the assessee is not liable to be declined. The expenses is also liable to be allowed in the relevant year in accordance with law. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Addition u/s 14A - Held that - Since, the assessee did not earned the exempt income, therefore, there should not disallowance u/s 14A.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Legal and Professional Charges paid to REACH.
2. Disallowance of yearly charges included in the total expenses paid to REACH.
3. Alternative claim for amortization or depreciation on the capitalized expenditure.
4. Disallowance of Legal and Professional Charges paid to Intertek India Pvt. Ltd.
5. Disallowance of Testing Charges out of the total amount paid to Intertek India Pvt. Ltd.
6. Alternative claim for spreading the payments made to Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. over five years.
7. Disallowance of Professional Charges paid to Avalon Consulting.
8. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
9. Premature initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Legal and Professional Charges paid to REACH:
The assessee incurred legal and professional charges amounting to ?1,08,69,332/- paid to REACH for registration purposes to market its products in European countries. The Tribunal observed that these expenses were necessary for the business to comply with regulatory requirements and allowed them as revenue expenses, citing precedents from similar cases such as USV Ltd. Vs. DCIT and ACIT Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

2. Disallowance of yearly charges included in the total expenses paid to REACH:
The Tribunal noted that ?23,34,349/- out of the total expenses paid to REACH were recurring yearly charges. These were also deemed necessary for maintaining the registration and were allowed as revenue expenses.

3. Alternative claim for amortization or depreciation on the capitalized expenditure:
Given that the Tribunal allowed the entire expenditure as revenue in nature, the alternative claim for amortization or depreciation became academic and was not adjudicated.

4. Disallowance of Legal and Professional Charges paid to Intertek India Pvt. Ltd.:
The assessee paid ?14,74,991/- to Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. for assistance in the registration process with REACH. The Tribunal, following the same rationale as in the first issue, allowed these expenses as revenue in nature.

5. Disallowance of Testing Charges out of the total amount paid to Intertek India Pvt. Ltd.:
The Tribunal allowed the testing charges of ?1,89,001/- as revenue expenses, emphasizing that no enduring benefit resulted from these expenses.

6. Alternative claim for spreading the payments made to Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. over five years:
As the Tribunal allowed the entire expenditure as revenue in nature, the alternative claim for spreading the payments over five years was not required to be adjudicated.

7. Disallowance of Professional Charges paid to Avalon Consulting:
The assessee incurred ?60,36,000/- for professional charges paid to Avalon Consulting for strategic business planning. The Tribunal allowed the entire expenditure in the year it was incurred, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT, which supports the principle that revenue expenditure should be allowed in the year it is incurred unless the assessee opts to spread it over multiple years.

8. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of ?78,403/- under section 14A, as the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year. This decision was supported by the Delhi High Court's ruling in Pr. CIT Vs. IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd.

9. Premature initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as it was likely rendered moot by the favorable decisions on the substantive issues.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, granting relief on all contested grounds. The legal and professional charges paid to REACH and Intertek India Pvt. Ltd., as well as the professional charges paid to Avalon Consulting, were all treated as revenue expenses. The disallowance under section 14A was also deleted. The alternative claims for amortization or spreading the expenses over multiple years were not adjudicated due to the primary relief granted.

← Previous Next →