9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of debenture issue expenses. 2. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act. Issue 1: Disallowance of Debenture Issue Expenses The primary issue revolved around the disallowance of Rs. 18,17,680 out of the total debenture issue expenses of Rs. 50,49,111. The assessee issued partly convertible debentures (PCD) and claimed the entire expense as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer allowed only the proportionate part of the expenditure related to the non-convertible portion of the debentures, treating the expenses related to the convertible portion as capital expenditure. This action was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the entire expenditure should be allowed as a deduction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, which allows expenses incurred on obtaining loans as revenue expenditure. The assessee contended that the expenditure was related to the issuance of debentures, and the subsequent conversion to shares was irrelevant. The Revenue, however, supported the disallowance, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT, which disallowed share issue expenses as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the debentures issued were partly convertible into shares, and the conversion was automatic and simultaneous with the allotment of debentures. The prospectus and other documents indicated that the issue was partly for raising share capital and partly for obtaining loans. The Tribunal concluded that the expenses related to the convertible portion should be treated as capital expenditure, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. However, a dissenting opinion by one of the members argued that the expenses were incurred solely for the issue of debentures, and the subsequent conversion to shares should not affect the nature of the expenses. The dissenting member cited the Supreme Court's decision in India Cements Ltd., emphasizing that the expenses were related to obtaining loans and should be allowed as revenue expenditure. The matter was referred to a third member due to the difference of opinion. The third member upheld the view that the expenses related to the convertible portion should be treated as capital expenditure, agreeing with the initial decision of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 40A(3) The second issue involved the disallowance of Rs. 2,42,177 under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, which mandates that payments exceeding a certain limit must be made through banking channels to be allowed as deductions. The Assessing Officer noted that the company made several cash payments in contravention of section 40A(3), including payments for consumables, employee incentives, and payments to a cargo agent. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The assessee argued that the payments were made under exceptional circumstances, such as dealing with new parties or terminated employees. However, the Tribunal found that the payments were of a recurring nature and made to the same parties multiple times. The assessee failed to provide confirmatory letters from the concerned parties to support the claim of exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal, citing the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Aggarwal Steel Traders v. CIT, upheld the disallowance under section 40A(3), agreeing with the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) that the payments were not made under exceptional circumstances. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the disallowance of Rs. 18,17,680 as capital expenditure related to the convertible portion of the debenture issue and upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,42,177 under section 40A(3) for cash payments made in contravention of the Act.
|
