2013 (12) TMI 1151 - AT - Income Tax

Conversion charges and parking charges Revenue or capital in nature - Held that - Following Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs CIT 1990 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court - If some expenditure incurred resulted into advantage of enduring benefit, the expenditure may not amount to acquisition of an asset - The assessee had paid amounts for one time conversion charges and for parking charges at the two outlets, the benefits of which might accrue to the assessee for indefinite period of time - These were incurred to enable the profit making structures to work more efficiently leaving the source or the profit making structure untouched - The expenditure were in the nature of levies/taxes paid by an assessee to a government authority for making available the required infrastructure to run the business efficiently and effectively The expenses are revenue in nature - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Disallowance of conversion charges and parking charges as revenue expenditure.
2. Whether the payments made by the assessee to the MCD for conversion charges and parking charges provide enduring benefit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Conversion Charges and Parking Charges
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, which disallowed certain expenditures claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed an amount paid by the assessee to the Municipal Corporation on account of conversion of a rented outlet from industrial to commercial unit, along with one-time parking charges for a showroom. The AO considered these expenditures as providing enduring benefit to the assessee and disallowed them.

Issue 2: Enduring Benefit of Payments to MCD
The assessee argued before the CIT(A) that the payments made were not for enduring benefit but to prevent the extinction of the business. The assessee highlighted that the rented properties were on lease and not owned by the company, and the payments did not add value to the assets. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, emphasizing that the payments were made to run the business efficiently and prevent closure. The assessee cited various judgments to support the contention that such payments were revenue in nature and not capital expenditure.

Judicial Precedents and Principles
The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents to determine the nature of the expenditures. Citing the principles enumerated in the case of CIT vs J.K Synthetics Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that expenses incurred for running the business and producing profits are revenue in nature. The Tribunal also relied on the decision in Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs CIT, which held that certain expenditures, even if resulting in enduring benefit, may not amount to acquisition of a capital asset.

Conclusion
After considering the arguments and legal principles, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It was established that the payments made by the assessee to the MCD were for enabling the business to operate efficiently and effectively, without acquiring any capital asset. The Tribunal concluded that the payments were akin to levies or taxes paid for infrastructure and did not provide enduring benefit in a capital sense. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision of the CIT(A).

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, relevant legal principles, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →