9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 413 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of premium paid on account of repayment of optionally convertible debenture (OCD) u/s 37 - HELD THAT - We find that identical ground of appeal was raised before this Tribunal in assessee s own case for subsequent assessment years 2023 (11) TMI 1145 - ITAT MUMBAI wherein the Tribunal had rejected similar claim made by assessee as held Assessee did not have any obligation to redeem the CCDs as at the end of the relevant previous year, or at the date of finalization of account, or even at the date of filing return of income. Therefore, in our view, Assessee had no liability, whether ascertained or contingent, to redeem the debentures. It is admitted position that no payment towards redemption or premium was made during the relevant previous year. Therefore, in our view, the Assessee could not be permitted to claim deduction either on accrual or paid basis during the relevant previous year. Since the OCDs were not in existence during the relevant previous year, the question of allowing deduction for the proportionate amount of redemption premium as interest during the relevant previous year, in our view, does not arise.- Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Admission and adjudication of an additional ground of appeal regarding the disallowance of premium paid on the repayment of optionally convertible debentures (OCD) under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Determination of whether the premium on redemption of debentures is allowable as a revenue expenditure. 3. Consideration of whether the accounting treatment affects the allowability of the claim. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admission and Adjudication of Additional Ground of Appeal: The primary issue revolves around the assessee's appeal concerning the disallowance of premium paid on the repayment of optionally convertible debentures (OCD) under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initially, the Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 but had not adjudicated on the additional ground regarding the premium paid on OCDs. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) to address this oversight, which led to the Tribunal recalling the original order to admit and adjudicate this specific ground. The assessee argued that the premium should be considered for deduction as it pertains to the business activity of the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal had to decide whether to admit this additional ground based on precedents like Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT and others, which support the admission of additional claims during appellate proceedings. 2. Allowability of Premium on Redemption of Debentures as Revenue Expenditure: The assessee contended that the premium paid on the redemption of debentures should be treated as a revenue expenditure. The argument was supported by several case laws, including Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd Vs. CIT, which held that such premiums could be treated as revenue expenses. The assessee's position was that compulsorily convertible debentures (CCDs), which were later converted to OCDs, should be treated as debt rather than equity, and thus, the premium paid on redemption should be deductible. The Tribunal, however, noted that in previous assessment years (AY 2011-12 to AY 2013-14), similar claims by the assessee were dismissed, as the premium was considered capital in nature and not allowable as a revenue expense. 3. Impact of Accounting Treatment on Claim Allowability: The assessee argued that the accounting treatment of the premium should not determine its allowability for tax purposes. The Tribunal considered precedents like Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs. CIT, which established that entries in the books of accounts are not conclusive for tax treatment. The assessee maintained that despite the premium being debited to the securities premium account, it should still be considered a deductible expense. However, the Tribunal upheld the view that since the obligation to pay the premium did not exist during the relevant assessment year and no payment was made, the claim could not be allowed retroactively. Conclusion: The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and previous rulings, decided to dismiss the additional ground of appeal. It relied on its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years, where similar claims were rejected. The Tribunal concluded that the premium on redemption was capital in nature and not deductible as a revenue expense under the given circumstances, reaffirming that the commercial arrangement and accounting treatment did not alter the tax implications. The order was pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2024, dismissing the additional ground of appeal.
|
