2021 (10) TMI 616 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of project expenses - Allowable business expenses or not? - HELD THAT - The issue contested herein regarding the addition on account of project expenses was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2010-11 2017 (9) TMI 1954 - ITAT DELHI and 2011-12 2019 (8) TMI 1767 - ITAT DELHI . Thus the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition on account of the net project expenses does not require interference. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of project expenses as business expenditure.
2. Allowability of project expenses for tax deduction.
3. Nature of projects undertaken by the assessee.
4. Capital vs. revenue expenditure classification.
5. Treatment of expenses related to socio-economic activities.
6. Contribution from the promoter IFFCO.
7. Judicial precedent and appeal dismissal.

Analysis:

1. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of ?51,41,899 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of project expenses for the assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue contended that the expenses were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business but were akin to donations. The CIT (A) had deleted the addition, prompting the appeal.

2. The Revenue argued that expenses incurred for charitable purposes should not be allowed as business expenditure under the Income Tax Act unless they are directly related to the business operations. The contention was that noble expenses, such as those for socio-economic activities, do not qualify as deductible business expenses.

3. The nature of projects undertaken by the assessee was scrutinized to determine their alignment with the core business activity of trading fertilizers. It was highlighted that the projects were aimed at enhancing fertilizer sales, which was the primary business of both the assessee and its promoter, IFFCO.

4. The issue of whether the project expenses resulted in enduring benefits and should be classified as capital expenditure was raised. The argument was made that creating demand for fertilizers over several years indicated a capital nature of expenses rather than revenue expenditure.

5. The treatment of expenses related to socio-economic activities was debated, with reference to Explanation-2 to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The contention was that expenses incurred for corporate social responsibility activities should not be considered business expenses, impacting their tax deductibility.

6. The fact that the assessee received contributions from its promoter IFFCO, which primarily traded in fertilizers, was highlighted. This raised questions about the financial relationship between the two entities and its implications on the treatment of expenses.

7. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents, including decisions from previous assessment years, where similar issues were adjudicated. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision based on these precedents and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the alignment of the expenses with business activities and the lack of distinguishing facts presented by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the addition on account of project expenses based on the alignment of expenses with business activities and consistent judicial precedents.