2012 (5) TMI 391 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - expenses incurred for acquiring the shares of other company treating - held that - there was no clarity in the material facts relevant to the acquisition of shares made by the assessee in relation to which the impugned expenses were claimed to be incurred. - the assessee, therefore, was required by us to clarify the factual position. The material facts of the case relevant to the issue under consideration have not been appreciated by the authorities below in the right perspective. This might have happened because of the lack of clarity in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and the factual position has become clear only when the factual contradictions were brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the assessee by us and explanation was sought from him to clarify the position. Claim of the assessee company needs to be examined afresh in the light of clear factual position which has now emerged at this stage. - matter remanded back to AO.

Issues Involved:
Disallowance of expenses incurred for acquiring shares of another company treated as capital in nature.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Disallowance of Expenses:
The appeal filed by the assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs.51,71,013/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) regarding expenses incurred for acquiring shares of another company. The AO treated these expenses as capital in nature based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation vs. CIT 225 ITR 792. The assessee contended that the expenses were incurred for the expansion of its existing business and were fully allowable as business exigencies. However, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the disallowance, stating that the expenses were related to the acquisition of shares and not for the expansion of the business. The Tribunal found a lack of clarity in the material facts and directed the issue to be examined afresh by the AO in light of the correct factual position, where the investment was made in the shares of the subsidiary company, not in the shares of the other company directly. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.

2. Clarification of Factual Position:
The factual position clarified by the learned counsel for the assessee revealed that the investment was made in the shares of the subsidiary company, M/s Monga Strayfield Ltd. U.K., which acquired the business assets from Strayfield Ltd. U.K. The expenses incurred were during the planning stage for acquiring the business division, and the counsel argued that these expenses were revenue in nature, not directly related to the acquisition. The expenses included consultation fees, traveling expenses, and interest on bank borrowing. The Tribunal found that the authorities below had misunderstood the facts, and the issue needed to be re-examined in light of the correct factual position.

3. Submission by Assessee and Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the counsel for the assessee, highlighting that the expenses were incurred for planning the strategy to acquire the business division and were revenue in nature. The Tribunal noted that the expenses were not directly related to the acquisition of shares but were routine business expenses. The Tribunal, after considering the clarification provided by the counsel, found that the material facts had not been appreciated correctly by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the issue to be reconsidered by the AO, giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

4. Final Decision and Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the issue of disallowance of expenses incurred for acquiring shares to be re-examined by the AO in accordance with law. The Tribunal emphasized the need to evaluate the claim of the assessee in light of the clarified factual position regarding the investment in the subsidiary company and the nature of the expenses incurred for business purposes. The decision highlighted the importance of understanding the correct factual background before making determinations on the nature of expenses incurred in connection with share acquisitions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision to re-examine the disallowance of expenses in light of the clarified factual position.

← Previous Next →