9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1192 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of expenditure/business loss - no income has been earned during the year - HELD THAT - In assessee s own group concern case in Hike Private Limited 2022 (9) TMI 1434 - ITAT DELHI ITAT had noted the proposition that earning of income is not necessary for allowing of expenditure. Assessee has started earning revenue from the next year which has been duly submitted before us in the form of paper book. We are of the opinion that the authorities below have erred in disallowing the assessee s business loss and the same needs to be allowed. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - payment was statutory charges made to HUDA for granting license by Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana - HELD THAT - We refer to Hon ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of BPTP Ltd. 2020 (1) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein it is held that EDC are in the nature of statutory fees. We note that ld. CIT (A) has already granted relief to the assessee on the ground that section 40(a)(ia) applies to expenses claimed in P L account. Since the assessee s claim that expenses were not debited to P L account is correct, ld. CIT (A) held that there is no question of disallowance of expenses. We find that other case laws in this regard relied upon by the assessee also support the proposition that no TDS is required to be deducted on payments made to HUDA for EDC. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of business loss claimed by the assessee. 2. Deletion of addition under section 40(a)(ia) for payments made to HUDA. Summary: Issue 1: Disallowance of Business Loss Claimed by the Assessee The assessee's appeal challenges the disallowance of a business loss of Rs.4,58,06,150/- by the AO, who argued that no business activity was undertaken during the year under consideration. The assessee contended that it had set up its business by establishing administrative infrastructure for acting as a "Development Manager" for a real estate project in Gurgaon and had entered into a collaboration agreement for developing land in Faridabad. The AO noted that the assessee, incorporated on 12.01.2015, had not received any revenue but claimed substantial business-related expenses, leading to a business loss of Rs.4,06,96,408/-. The AO questioned the capitalization of these expenses since no revenue was earned. The assessee argued that setting up a business does not necessitate immediate income generation, citing several judicial precedents, including Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited and Whirlpool India Ltd, which support the notion that expenses incurred between setting up and commencing business should be allowed as business expenditure. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, noted that the AO had acknowledged the initial business activities of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited, which held that expenses incurred to keep the business primed up should not be capitalized but allowed as business expenditure. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, reversing the disallowance of the business loss. Issue 2: Deletion of Addition under Section 40(a)(ia) for Payments Made to HUDA The Revenue's appeal contested the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs.1,32,792,000/- under section 40(a)(ia), related to payments made to HUDA as External Development Charges (EDC). The AO had added this amount, arguing that the payment was subject to TDS provisions, based on a Supreme Court judgment and a CBDT OM. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, noting that section 40(a)(ia) applies to expenses claimed in the P&L account. Since the payment was not debited to the P&L account but shown as an asset, the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify this and delete the addition if confirmed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in BPTP Ltd. v. PCIT, which classified EDC as statutory fees exempt from TDS. The Tribunal also noted other case laws supporting the non-requirement of TDS on EDC payments to HUDA. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Conclusion: The assessee's appeal was allowed, reversing the disallowance of the business loss, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the deletion of the addition under section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal pronounced the order on 24th March 2023.
|
