2012 (10) TMI 773 - AT - Income Tax

Tender Fees Expenses - Revenue v/s Capital - Held that - The assessee has been submitting tender in its day-today business which are basically works contract on turn key basis. The assessee has procured orders for sale of its items manufactured. It has to fulfill the tenders floated by State Governments or Electricity Boards. It is not necessary that it will get the order. It does not create any new asset. It was incurred in connection with the integral part of profit earning process and not for acquisition of any asset, thus Revenue authority has failed to look into the true nature of the expenses - in favour of assessee. Bank Guarantee & Loan Processing Charges - Held that - Considering assessee s submission it can be concluded that loan was taken for working capital on perusal of the copies of invoices issued by various vendors as it reveals that the goods purchased by the assessee are insulator, panels etc. FAA fail to look into the fact that assessee is in the business of manufacture distributor transformers, HT cable box on job contract basis. It also constructs power houses and lays electrical lines. In connection with these operation, assessee has to purchase all these items. These items were consumed in the ultimate final product, which is the trading stock of the assessee - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi dated 21.12.2010 for AY 2006-07.
2. Disallowance of expenses claimed as capital in nature - Tender fees, bank guarantee charges, and loan processing charges.

Analysis:
The appellant, a company engaged in construction and trading, appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order for AY 2006-07. The main issue raised in the appeal was the addition of expenses amounting to Rs.1,57,200/- and Rs.37,000/- treated as capital in nature by the Ld. CIT(A). The expenses in question were tender fees, bank guarantee charges, and loan processing charges. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses based on the premise that they were capital expenditures. The appellant contested this disallowance on the grounds that the expenses were incurred in the regular course of business and not for acquiring any capital asset.

Upon careful consideration, the ITAT found that the tender fees were paid in the day-to-day business operations of the appellant, which did not result in the creation of any new asset. The fees were essential for participating in tenders to secure contracts, integral to the profit-earning process. The ITAT noted that the Revenue authority failed to understand the true nature of these expenses, distinguishing them from capital expenditures for asset acquisition.

Regarding the loan processing charges, the ITAT observed that the appellant had taken the loan for working capital requirements. The Ld. CIT(A) mistakenly categorized the goods purchased using the loan as capital goods, overlooking the fact that they were used in the appellant's manufacturing and construction operations. The items purchased were consumed in the final trading stock of the appellant, not constituting capital assets. Thus, the ITAT concluded that the disallowance of these expenses was unwarranted.

In light of the above analysis, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the disallowance of the expenses claimed as capital in nature. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs.1,57,200/- and Rs.37,000/- for tender fees and loan processing charges, respectively, was deleted. The ITAT's decision emphasized the distinction between revenue and capital expenditures, ensuring a fair assessment of the appellant's financial transactions and business operations.