9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction claimed on account of compensation paid to ex-shareholders. 2. Addition on account of employees' contribution towards PF not deposited within the prescribed time. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction Claimed on Account of Compensation Paid to Ex-Shareholders: The primary issue raised in ground No. 1 concerns the disallowance of a deduction of Rs. 21,14,000, which the assessee claimed as compensation paid to ex-shareholders following the direction of the Company Law Board. The minority shareholders, holding 56,100 equity shares, filed a petition under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, alleging oppression and mismanagement. The Company Law Board directed the company to purchase these shares and pay additional compensation, which the assessee claimed as a deduction in its profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, asserting that the amount paid for purchasing its own equity shares could not be allowed as revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld this view, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT, which classified the fee paid to the Registrar of Companies for expanding the capital base as capital expenditure. Upon appeal, the assessee argued that the compensation was paid to remove obstacles to the business and did not result in the creation of any asset or enduring advantage. The assessee cited Supreme Court judgments in Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT and the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Muir Mills Co. Ltd., arguing that the expenditure was operational and thus deductible as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal reviewed the records and rival contentions, noting that the minority shareholders had less than 3% shareholding and could not significantly obstruct the company's business. The Tribunal observed that the payment was essentially the price paid for purchasing shares, not merely compensation. It referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Brooke Bond India Ltd., concluding that expenditure related to the capital structure of the company is capital expenditure. The Tribunal held that the payment for purchasing shares was capital expenditure and not deductible as revenue expenditure. However, it allowed the deduction of Rs. 3,83,476, which was compensation towards refunding loans without interest, as revenue expenditure. 2. Addition on Account of Employees' Contribution towards PF Not Deposited Within the Prescribed Time: The second issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 3,17,724 due to the late deposit of employees' contribution towards PF under section 36(1)(va). The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that the contributions were not deposited within the time limit prescribed by the relevant statute. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that most payments were made within the grace period of 5 days after the due date, referencing the Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v. Modi Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. The Tribunal agreed, noting that employees' contributions to PF are deductible if deposited by the 15th day of the following month, including a grace period of 5 days. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter in light of this observation and allow the deduction for payments made within the grace period. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, affirming the disallowance of the compensation paid for purchasing shares as capital expenditure but allowing the interest on refunded loans as revenue expenditure. The issue of employees' contributions to PF was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
|
