2013 (12) TMI 127 - AT - Income Tax

Reimbursement of expenses - Tax not deducted at source - Held that - The payment was made by the assessee company to other towards reimbursement of expenses actually incurred without any mark-up or element of profit - The payment was not towards service charges or income of that company - Decided in favour of assessee. Rent Expenses reimbursed - Held that - The disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) has already been deleted in this aspect therefore the issue should be decided on that basis - The issue was restored for fresh decision. Prior period expenses - payment of bonus - Held that - The assessee could not establish that the liability on account of payment of bonus pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08 was crystalised during the year under consideration neither before CIT(A) nor before the Tribunal - Decided against assessee. Expense relating to A.Y. 2008-09 - Disallowed in A.Y. 2009-10 - Held that - The expenses could be allowed in the A.Y. 2008-09 as pertains to this A. Y. only - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 4,59,56,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of tax at source.
2. Disallowance of 1/3rd of the rent paid by the assessee to IDFC Limited.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 1,19,51,553/- as prior period expenses.
4. Consideration of Rs. 77,38,000/- as prior period expenses for A.Y. 2008-09 if disallowed in A.Y. 2009-10.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Rs. 4,59,56,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia):
The assessee, a company engaged in investment advisory and portfolio management services, had reimbursed Rs. 4,59,56,000/- to its holding company, IDFC Limited, for various expenses. The A.O. disallowed this amount under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The assessee argued that these were mere reimbursements without any markup, and IDFC Limited had already deducted tax where required. The A.O. rejected this, stating that the arrangement was contractual and required TDS under Section 194C. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance but reduced it to Rs. 3,40,04,447/- after excluding a double disallowed bonus amount. The Tribunal, however, deleted the disallowance, citing multiple judicial precedents that reimbursement of actual expenses without markup does not attract TDS provisions.

2. Disallowance of 1/3rd of the Rent Paid:
The A.O. also disallowed 1/3rd of the rent paid by the assessee to IDFC Limited, amounting to Rs. 18,71,404/-, under Section 38(2), arguing that the entire rent was not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate on this issue since the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was confirmed. The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit, as the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.

3. Disallowance of Rs. 1,19,51,553/- as Prior Period Expenses:
The A.O. disallowed Rs. 1,19,51,553/- as prior period expenses, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to establish that the liability for this bonus crystallized during the year under consideration. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance, dismissing the assessee's ground on this issue.

4. Consideration of Rs. 77,38,000/- as Prior Period Expenses for A.Y. 2008-09:
The assessee sought a direction that Rs. 77,38,000/- disallowed in A.Y. 2009-10 as prior period expenses should be allowed in A.Y. 2008-09. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to consider this claim on merit and verify relevant aspects.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) but remitting the issue of rent disallowance back to CIT(A) and upholding the disallowance of prior period expenses. The Tribunal also directed the A.O. to consider the prior period expenses for A.Y. 2008-09 if disallowed in A.Y. 2009-10.

← Previous Next →