9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (2) TMI 276 - AT - Income TaxWritten off irrecoverable inter-corporate deposits - claimed it as business loss or Revenue Loss - Payments made to the shareholders for acquiring the shares of Indocan by way of Inter-corporate deposits - Held That - The first component of the assessee s claim as a business loss or alternatively as a revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) which represents the payments made to the shareholders for acquiring the shares of Indocan. We fail to see the rationale behind this claim. Manifestly it cannot be said that this payment had any direct and proximate nexus with or that it was incidental to the carrying on of the operations of the business of the assessee company as mentioned. We fail to comprehend as to how the payments made to the promoters for buying the shares of Indocan could be claimed as a revenue expenditure u/s 37(1). We therefore hold that the claim can neither be allowed as a business loss nor as a revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. The other component of the assessee s claim as a business loss or alternatively as a revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) claimed in AY 2001-02 and in AY 2002-03. It represents payments made by the assessee company and its associates to Indocan as ICDs because Indocan was in financial difficulties. The operations of the business of the assessee company are mentioned. Therefore we have to hold that the payments of ICDs to Indocan had neither a direct and proximate nexus with nor was it incidental to the carrying on of the operations of the business of the assessee company as mentioned. Admittedly it is not the business of the assessee company to make deposits as ICDs. We therefore hold that the claim can neither be allowed as a business loss nor as a revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. The nexus must be direct and proximate and it should be with the carrying on of the operations of the business . In the present case such a direct and proximate nexus between the impugned payments aggregating sum and the carrying on the operations of the business of the assessee company is totally absent as can be seen from the discussions. The ground is accordingly rejected - In the result the appeal is rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of lead manager fee and SEBI & PSE registration fee. 2. Write-off of Rs. 2,22,04,548 as a business loss or revenue expenditure. 3. Deduction of EDP software expenses. 4. Ad hoc disallowance on sundry expenses, hotel expenses, gift articles, and employee welfare expenses. 5. Ad hoc disallowance on telephone and fax expenses. 6. Ad hoc disallowance on traveling and conveyance expenses. 7. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the IT Act. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Deduction of Lead Manager Fee and SEBI & PSE Registration Fee: - The assessee claimed a deduction for lead manager fee of Rs. 75,000 and SEBI & PSE registration fee of Rs. 20,000. - The AO invoked section 35D, allowing only 1/5th of the expenses. - The CIT(A) allowed Rs. 15,080 as revenue expenditure but withdrew the 1/5th deduction for Rs. 95,000. - The Tribunal found the issue in favor of the assessee, citing the precedent in Standard Industries Ltd., where similar expenses were allowed as revenue expenditure. - Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for full deduction. 2. Write-off of Rs. 2,22,04,548 as a Business Loss or Revenue Expenditure: - The assessee claimed a write-off of Rs. 2,22,04,548, which included Rs. 76,68,000 for shares and Rs. 1,45,36,548 for ICDs. - The AO and CIT(A) disallowed the claim. - The Tribunal examined the nature of the transactions and found no direct and proximate nexus with the business operations of the assessee. - Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the claim, stating that the expenses could neither be allowed as a business loss nor as revenue expenditure under section 37(1). 3. Deduction of EDP Software Expenses: - The assessee claimed Rs. 80,500 as EDP software expenses. - The AO treated it as capital expenditure, a view upheld by the CIT(A). - The Tribunal cited the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Arawali Constructions Co. (P) Ltd., treating software acquisition as capital expenditure. - Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, treating the expenses as capital expenditure. 4. Ad Hoc Disallowance on Sundry Expenses, Hotel Expenses, Gift Articles, and Employee Welfare Expenses: - The AO disallowed 10% of the expenses, amounting to Rs. 94,425, citing non-verifiability and potential personal use. - The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 50,000. - The Tribunal found the disallowance based on conjectures and surmises, noting that the assessee being a company, personal use was not applicable. - Conclusion: The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, allowing the claim in full. 5. Ad Hoc Disallowance on Telephone and Fax Expenses: - The AO disallowed 15% of the expenses, amounting to Rs. 1,11,748, citing personal use. - The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 50,000. - The Tribunal, citing the Gujarat High Court's decision in Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co., found no justification for ad hoc disallowance for a company. - Conclusion: The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, allowing the claim in full. 6. Ad Hoc Disallowance on Traveling and Conveyance Expenses: - The AO disallowed Rs. 1,00,000, citing non-verifiability and personal use. - The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 25,000. - The Tribunal found the disallowance based on conjectures and surmises, noting that the assessee being a company, personal use was not applicable. - Conclusion: The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, allowing the claim in full. 7. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the IT Act: - The assessee contended that interest under these sections was not leviable. - The CIT(A) did not decide on this issue. - The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. - Conclusion: The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. Separate Judgments: - The Tribunal delivered a common order for both assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, addressing similar issues in both years. - For assessment year 2002-03, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the write-off of Rs. 75,00,000, following the same reasoning as for assessment year 2001-02. - Ad hoc disallowances on telephone, fax, and sundry expenses for assessment year 2002-03 were deleted, following the same reasoning as for assessment year 2001-02. - The issue of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C for assessment year 2002-03 was remitted back to the CIT(A) with the same directions as for assessment year 2001-02. Conclusion: - The appeals for both assessment years were partly allowed, with several disallowances deleted and the issue of interest remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
|
