9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 696 - AT - Income TaxProject development expenditure - Treatment of expenditure in the return of income - disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 37(1) - Held that - Under the income-tax law, the profit of a particular store cannot be separately computed. Thus, the profits of the retail business have to be computed by taking the entire business as one . Since the assessee is already having incomes from its retail business, the admitted fact would be that the business of the assessee is already set up as per facts and well settled legal position. It is well settled position of law that all the expenses incurred subsequent to the setting up of the business shall be allowable to the assessee. The assessee had wrongly capitalised these expenses under some misconception and misunderstanding of accounting standards. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT (2015 (3) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT) wherein observed that the fact that a different treatment was given in the books of account by an assessee could not be a factor which would bar the assessee from claiming the entire expenditure as a deduction. Once a return is filed in a particular manner, the AO is bound to carry out the assessment applying the provisions of the Act and not to go beyond the return. There is no estoppel against the statute and the Act enables and entitles the assessee to claim the entire expenditure in the manner it can be claimed under the law. It has been further clarified by the Hon ble Supreme Court that under the income-tax, there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure in the Act, except under specific section, i.e. where amortisation is specifically provided for such as in section 35D of the Act. In the case before us, no such law has been applied by the AO. The assessee has claimed the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. Keeping in view the nature of these expenses and business of the assessee, we find no reason and justification to deny the claim of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of claim for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act for revenue expenditure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Claim for Deduction under Section 37(1): Background: The appeals involve multiple assessees with identical issues, primarily focusing on the disallowance of revenue expenditure claimed under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The specific case discussed pertains to M/s Reliance Fresh Ltd for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09. Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that the expenditure of ?56.62 crores, though capitalized in the books of accounts, was revenue in nature and should be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1). The assessee did not claim depreciation on these expenses in any year and provided an undertaking not to claim depreciation in the future. The assessee relied on several judgments where similar expenses were treated as revenue expenses. Revenue's Argument: The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the expenses were for opening new stores, hence for new projects, and should not be allowed as revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) had directed the allowance of depreciation on these capitalized expenses, preventing double deduction. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business was already operational and the expenses were incurred post the business setup. The expenses were genuinely incurred and were revenue in nature, not related to acquiring any capital asset. The Tribunal emphasized that the manner of accounting should not determine the taxability or allowability of expenses; instead, it should be based on the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Key Points: - The expenses were wrongly capitalized due to a misunderstanding of accounting standards. - The business was already set up, and the expenses were for the same business. - The genuineness of the expenses was not doubted. - The Tribunal referred to various judgments supporting the treatment of such expenses as revenue expenditure. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the expenses should be allowed as revenue expenditure. The CIT(A)'s direction to allow depreciation was reversed, and the expenses were to be allowed in full as revenue expenditure. The assessee's undertaking not to claim depreciation was noted, and the Assessing Officer (AO) was directed to verify this in subsequent years. Supporting Judgments: The Tribunal cited several judgments, including: - Reliance Footprint Ltd vs ACIT - Reliance Supply Chain Solutions Ltd - Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT (Supreme Court) Outcome: The appeal of M/s Reliance Fresh Ltd was allowed, and the expenses were treated as revenue expenditure. An identical claim by Reliance Digital Retail Ltd for A.Y. 2009-10 was also allowed based on the same reasoning and directions. Final Order: Both appeals were allowed as per the directions, with the order pronounced on 13th July 2016.
|
