9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 814 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 37 - Stamping fee and ROC fee for increase in authorized share capital - CIT disallowed deduction - Held that - , these two expenses are incurred for authorized share capital, and hence even after call off of public issue by the assessee, the benefit is available to the assessee in respect of this increase in authorized share capital, and hence these expenses cannot be said to be expenses in connection with right issue and public issue, and therefore these expenses are to be disallowed - Following decision of Brooke Bond India Limited Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax 1997 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME Court - Decided against assessee. Deduction u/s 37 - Expenditure for raising capital through composite issue - CIT disallowed deduction - Held that - With the approval of SEBI, the assessee was to increase the share capital and thereby promote its business activity. However, the same got aborted due to reasons beyond its control - Following decision of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Essar Oil Limited 2008 (10) TMI 387 - Bombay High Court - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of expenditure incurred in connection with a public issue under Section 37(1) or Section 28 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Confirmation of disallowance of 1/5th of the expenditure incurred for the public issue. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allowability of Expenditure Incurred in Connection with a Public Issue: The primary issue concerns whether the entire expenditure of Rs. 1,55,95,204/- incurred by the assessee for a public issue, which was later aborted, is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) or Section 28 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee argued that the expenditure should be allowed as revenue expenditure since it was incurred for the improvement of existing business operations and did not result in any increase in the capital base. The assessee further contended that since the public issue was aborted, the expenditure should be considered a business loss under Section 28. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the expenditure, stating that the object of the expenditure was to increase the capital base, and even though the public issue did not materialize, the expenditure remains capital in nature. This view was supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Brooke Bond India Ltd., which held that even abortive capital expenditure must be disallowed as capital expenditure. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the A.O.'s decision, emphasizing that the expenditure was incurred for raising capital through a public issue, which is considered a capital activity with enduring benefits. The CIT(A) cited several Supreme Court cases, including Brooke Bond India Ltd., Punjab State Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, and CIT vs. Kodak India Ltd., to support this view. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that Rs. 8.35 lakhs of the total expenditure was incurred for increasing the authorized share capital, which provided an enduring benefit to the assessee and should be disallowed. For the remaining Rs. 1,47,60,204/-, the ITAT referred to the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s Nimbus Communications Ltd., which held that aborted share issue expenditure should be allowed as revenue expenditure under Section 37 since no new asset came into existence and no enduring benefit was received by the assessee. Consequently, the ITAT partly allowed the assessee's appeal, permitting the deduction of Rs. 1,47,60,204/- as revenue expenditure under Section 37. 2. Confirmation of Disallowance of 1/5th of the Expenditure: The second issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 31,19,041/-, being 1/5th of the total expenditure of Rs. 1,55,95,204/-. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee initially claimed 1/5th of the expenditure as preliminary expenses under Section 35D, which was not supported by the tax auditor. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's revised claim to allow the entire expenditure under Section 37(1) or Section 28, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Goetz India Ltd., which held that new claims cannot be entertained during assessment or appellate proceedings unless made through a revised return. The ITAT, in light of its decision on the first issue, found that the disallowance of Rs. 31,19,041/- was no longer relevant. Since the ITAT allowed the deduction of Rs. 1,47,60,204/- under Section 37, the second ground became infructuous and was dismissed. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. The ITAT permitted the deduction of Rs. 1,47,60,204/- as revenue expenditure under Section 37, while disallowing Rs. 8.35 lakhs incurred for increasing the authorized share capital. The second ground of appeal was dismissed as infructuous following the decision on the first issue.
|
