9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 860 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - assessee claimed expenses of the subsidiary entities who were independent companies with separate legal status and also assessable to income tax in their own status, thus when the resulting income was likely to arise in the hands of subsidiary companies, the claim of expenses would not be allowable to the assessee - HELD THAT - We would confirm the revision order, however, with certain modifications since the earlier order of the Tribunal for AY 2009-10 2014 (7) TMI 1219 - ITAT CHENNAI as available to Ld. AO was not considered while framing the assessment for this year. Further, fresh adjudication has been done by the bench for AYs 2011-12, 2012- 13 2014-15 in its latest order which would have material bearing on the assessment. In terms of latest order dated 14.03.2022, Ld. AO is directed to disallow incubation expenses, if any, as incurred by the assessee. The income would be assessed as Income from other sources against which related expenditure would be allowable in terms of Sec.57(iii). The Ld. AO is directed to reframe the assessment on above lines.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revision order passed u/s 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). 2. Whether the assessment order was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. Whether the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was valid. 4. Whether the previous Tribunal decisions were binding and applicable. 5. Whether the expenses claimed by the assessee were allowable. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Revision Order u/s 263: The assessee contested the validity of the revision order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 for AY 2013-14. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 31-03-2016, accepting a returned loss of Rs.176.01 Lacs. The PCIT proposed revision on the grounds that the assessee claimed expenses of Rs.901.30 Lacs for subsidiary entities, which were independent and assessable to income tax separately. The PCIT noted that the AO did not examine whether the assessee was carrying on incubation activities, thus attracting Sec. 263 provisions. 2. Prejudicial to the Interests of the Revenue: The assessee argued that the assessment order was not prejudicial to the revenue's interests as the AO had verified all particulars of income and expenses. However, the PCIT observed that the AO did not examine the nature of the activities and whether the expenses claimed were allowable, leading to the revision order. 3. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 263: The assessee contended that the jurisdiction assumption under section 263 was unsustainable, as the AO had completed the assessment after due verification. The PCIT, however, justified the revisionary jurisdiction, stating that the AO did not verify the issues flagged in the revision order, thus validating the assumption of jurisdiction under Sec. 263. 4. Applicability of Previous Tribunal Decisions: The assessee pointed out that for AY 2012-13, the Tribunal had held the principle issue in their favor, making the assumption of jurisdiction for AY 2013-14 unwarranted. The Tribunal had noted that the assessee carried out only Segment-II business activities during AY 2012-13, and the findings for earlier years regarding incubation expenses did not apply. However, the PCIT noted that the AO did not follow the Tribunal's directions for AY 2012-13, leading to the revision order. 5. Allowability of Expenses: The assessee claimed expenses related to shared services and infrastructure services, arguing that these were necessary for earning income. The Tribunal observed that for AY 2012-13, shared and infrastructure activities were not considered business activities and were assessable under 'income from other sources,' allowing related expenses u/s 57(iii). For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of incubation expenses, consultancy, and legal/professional charges but allowed related expenses u/s 57(iii). For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal confirmed that no expenses were incurred for Segment-I activities, and the income was assessable under 'income from other sources.' Conclusion: The Tribunal confirmed the revision order with modifications. The AO was directed to disallow incubation expenses and assess the income under 'Income from other sources,' allowing related expenses u/s 57(iii). The appeal was partly allowed, and the AO was instructed to reframe the assessment accordingly. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced on 17th August 2022.
|
