2019 (8) TMI 803 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of accrued incentive to staff - HELD THAT - We find that similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case 2019 (4) TMI 204 - ITAT DELHI wherein it was held that it is a definite and accrued liability of the assessee for the year for which the services have been rendered by the employees. It is nothing but additional variable salaries payable to the employees. Same partakes character of salary. As no distinguishing facts have been brought to our notice, respectfully following the findings of the coordinate bench. The appeals by the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed. Addition u/s.14A - investment in mutual funds - AO assumed 15% of the exempt income as expenditure - rule 8D which is not applicable for the relevant assessment year - HELD THAT - It is true that the AO has not recorded any satisfaction as regards to the accounts of the assessee. It is equally true that the assessee has also not disallowed any expenditure for earning the exempt income. Though the entire investment as per schedule of the balance sheet is towards mutual funds of various companies but in our considered opinion the assessee must have incurred some expenditure in making these investments. Some employees must have been engaged for selecting the mutual funds for making the investments. In our considered view some element of expenditure cannot be ruled out. We are of the considered view that a disallowance of ₹ 1,00,000/- should meet the ends of justice. - - ground of assessee is partly allowed Expenditure incurred for giving new look to the channel Aaj Tak - AO consider capital expenditure and allowed deprecation @15% - HELD THAT - The Aaj Tak channel which started from 1999 with a logo needed fresh look because of the passage of time and cut throat competition and for improving the viewership the logo was given a fresh look for which the assessee had incurred impugned expenditure. In our considered opinion the Aaj Tak logo was already there and by incurring the impugned expenditure the assessee has only enhanced its look by giving fresh and improved technical face. We are of the considered view that such expenditure is a routine expenditure. No doubt some enduring benefit will accrue to the assessee but giving a fresh look to the existing logo, no new asset was created and there was no addition to or expansion of the profit making apparatus of the assessee. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the ratio laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd 1980 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT we direct the AO to treat the impugned expenditure as a revenue expenditure and allow the same after withdrawing the depreciation. - ground of assessee is allowed Disallowance of bad debt and advances written off - the advances were given in the ordinary course of business and could not recovered - HELD THAT - It is true that the write off of advances do not fulfill the conditions laid down for claiming the bad debts but it is equally true that the said write off should not be considered as bad debts but has to be considered as business loss. Considering the facts of the case in their true perspective we are of the considered view that the write off should be allowed as business loss u/s. 28. - ground of assessee is allowed

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance on account of accrued incentive to staff.
2. Addition made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Disallowance of expenditure incurred for giving a new look to the channel "Aaj Tak".
4. Disallowance of bad debt and advances written off.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Disallowance on Account of Accrued Incentive to Staff:
The revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of accrued incentive to staff. The Tribunal had previously settled this issue in favor of the assessee in subsequent assessment years. The AO had disallowed the expenses on the grounds that the assessee failed to provide specific details and prove that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. However, the Tribunal found that the provision for performance-based incentives was made on a scientific basis and consistently followed by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was an ascertained liability and directed the AO to delete the disallowance of ?20,569,764/- on account of accrued incentive to staff.

2. Addition Made Under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee's appeal contested the addition made under section 14A for both assessment years, where the AO disallowed expenditure for earning exempt income. The AO had not recorded any satisfaction regarding the accounts of the assessee before making the disallowance. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had not disallowed any expenditure, some element of expenditure for earning the exempt income could not be ruled out. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to ?1,00,000/- for both assessment years, noting that rule 8D was not applicable for A.Y. 2007-08.

3. Disallowance of Expenditure Incurred for Giving a New Look to the Channel "Aaj Tak":
The AO treated the expenditure of ?2.66 crores incurred for giving a new look to the "Aaj Tak" channel as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation and disallowing ?24,084,750/-. The CIT(A) upheld this view. However, the Tribunal considered the expenditure as routine and necessary for enhancing the channel's presentation due to competition, without creating a new asset or expanding the profit-making apparatus. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Empire Jute Co. Ltd., the Tribunal directed the AO to treat the expenditure as revenue expenditure and allow it after withdrawing the depreciation.

4. Disallowance of Bad Debt and Advances Written Off:
The AO disallowed the write-off of advances amounting to ?109,210/-, treating them as bad debts. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, however, recognized that the advances were given in the ordinary course of business and should be considered as business loss under section 28 of the Act, rather than bad debts. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made on this account.

Conclusion:
The appeals of the revenue were dismissed, while the appeals of the assessee were partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the deletion of disallowances related to accrued incentives and business losses, and restricted the disallowance under section 14A to ?1,00,000/- for each assessment year. The expenditure for giving a new look to the "Aaj Tak" channel was treated as revenue expenditure.

← Previous Next →