9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 709 - AT - Income TaxAllowable business expenditure - Held that - Advertisement expenses is an allowable expenditure in the year of spending as the same is the nature of selling cost of the construction business. Considering the same, we are of the view that the finding of the Assessing Officer and the decision of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue is required to be reversed and allow the same in favour of the assessee. Regarding other claim of expenditure on account of brokerage and loan processing fee, we find the said claims should be allowed in favour of the assessee as they are otherwise found allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. In our view, these expenses constitute some kind of administrative expenses. The said administrative expenses are allowable as they are relatable to the business activities of the assessee. As such, it is not the Assessing Officer s case that the claims are ingenuine and not qualified the conditions specified in the provisions of section 37 of the Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of expenses to Work In Progress (WIP) account. 2. Method of accounting followed by the assessee. 3. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Cross appeals for the assessment year 2008-09. 5. Appeal for the assessment year 2010-11. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Expenses to Work In Progress (WIP) Account: The assessee contested the addition of ?75,88,422/- to the WIP account, which included interest on term loan/unsecured loan, advertisement expenses, brokerage, and loan processing fees. The Assessing Officer (AO) had increased the WIP by 75% of the indirect expenses, resulting in a higher gross profit calculation. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of direct expenses but deleted the addition related to indirect expenses. The Tribunal allowed the entire interest expenditure, stating it should not be capitalized as per Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, supported by the judgment in Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. The Tribunal also allowed the advertisement expenses, brokerage, and loan processing fees, referencing the decision in Vardhaman Developers Ltd., which held such expenses as selling costs not to be capitalized. 2. Method of Accounting Followed by the Assessee: The assessee consistently followed the Percentage of Completion Method (PCM) for accounting. The AO’s adjustments to the WIP account by transferring direct and indirect expenses were deemed invalid. The Tribunal upheld the assessee’s method, emphasizing that the interest and administrative expenses should be fully allowable against the gross profits. The Tribunal cited the decision in Rohan Estates Pvt. Ltd., which supported the assessee's claim for interest expenditure. 3. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The penalty of ?26 lakhs levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) was deleted by the CIT(A), who held that the assessee was entitled to relief on the ground of debatability. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the quantum additions were deleted, making the penalty unsustainable. 4. Cross Appeals for the Assessment Year 2008-09: The assessee and Revenue filed cross appeals regarding the treatment of administrative and financial expenses. The AO had increased the WIP account by adding 75% of the administrative expenses and direct expenses. The CIT(A) allowed 50.96% of the administrative expenses based on the sales recorded. The Tribunal found the administrative expenses entirely allowable as they were necessary for running the business and not direct costs. The Tribunal also upheld the assessee’s method of accounting and the GP rate of 22%, rejecting the sales-linked capitalization of expenses. 5. Appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11: The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance and capitalization of various expenses by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that both direct and indirect expenses were fully allowable, consistent with the decisions for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Conclusion: The Tribunal consistently upheld the assessee’s method of accounting, allowing the full deduction of direct and indirect expenses against the gross profits. The additions made by the AO to the WIP account were deemed unjustified, and the penalties under section 271(1)(c) were deleted. The Tribunal’s decisions were supported by relevant case laws and judgments, ensuring the assessee's claims were validated.
|
