9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the premium paid on debt restructuring should be allowed as a revenue expenditure in its entirety in the assessment year 2004-05. 2. Whether the premium paid should be amortized over the period of benefit. Issue 1: Allowance of Premium as Revenue Expenditure in Assessment Year 2004-05 The Department challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the full premium amount of Rs. 3,80,56,306 as revenue expenditure for the assessment year 2004-05. The Department argued that the benefit from this payment extends over multiple years and should not be confined to the year 2004-05. The assessee, having taken loans at higher interest rates, negotiated with financial institutions to reduce the interest rate in exchange for a premium. The financial institutions agreed to reduce the interest rate to approximately 10% from the original 16% upon payment of the premium in the year under appeal. The assessee claimed the entire premium as a deduction in its return, although it had treated it as deferred revenue expenditure in its accounts, spreading it over ten years. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed only a proportionate amount of Rs. 39,60,745, arguing that the benefit of the premium payment extended over ten years and should be amortized accordingly. The CIT(A), however, allowed the entire premium as revenue expenditure, stating that it was not spent on establishing a new industry or expanding an existing business, thus qualifying as revenue expenditure under section 35D. Issue 2: Amortization of Premium Over the Period of Benefit The Department argued that the premium payment should be amortized over ten years, aligning with the period over which the benefit of reduced interest rates would be realized. The AO's decision to allow only a proportionate amount was based on the matching principle of accounting, which requires expenses to be matched with the revenues of the period to which they relate. The statutory auditors also treated the premium as deferred revenue expenditure, spreading it over ten years in the financial statements. The Tribunal agreed with the Department, emphasizing that under the accrual basis of accounting, costs should be matched with revenues in the period they are incurred. The Tribunal referred to the matching principle and relevant judgments, including Taparia Tools Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (Bom.) and Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC), which support the allocation of expenditure over the period of benefit. The Tribunal concluded that allowing the entire premium in one year would distort the profits of that year, and the expenditure should be spread over the ten-year period during which the benefit of reduced interest rates would accrue. Conclusion: The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and restored the AO's order, allowing the premium payment on a proportionate basis over ten years. The appeal filed by the Department was allowed, and the memorandum of cross-objections filed by the assessee was dismissed.
|
