9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Disallowance of 'dilution expenses' as capital expenditure under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Analysis: The issue in this case revolves around the disallowance of 'dilution expenses' by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The ITO disallowed the expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,38,520, stating it was incurred for Indianisation of the assessee-company and transfer of equity funds from foreign holdings to Indian shareholders, thus considering it as capital in nature. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this disallowance, emphasizing that the expenditure directly related to reducing foreign shareholdings and the capital structure. The assessee contended that the expenses were aimed at preserving the capital asset and should be allowed as a revenue deduction. On the other hand, the departmental representative argued that the expenditure was rightly disallowed as it pertained to the capital structure. The expenses were paid to ICICI, Billimoria & Co., and Menon & Menon for advice on dilution of capital holdings due to the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Tribunal considered the events following the scheme of amalgamation, where the assets of the assessee-company vested in an Indian company, resulting in the dilution of share capital. As a consequence, there was no non-resident interest in the company. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure, emphasizing that expenses incurred to protect the business are revenue in nature. The Tribunal concluded that the 'dilution expenses' were necessary for the assessee to continue its business operations and were, therefore, an admissible deduction. In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the allowance of Rs. 1,38,520 as a revenue deduction, rejecting the contention that the expenses were capital in nature due to their essential role in enabling the assessee to carry on its business activities.
|
