9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 370 - AT - Income TaxNature of expenses - upfront fee and other charges - Revenue or capital expenditure - whether payment towards loan for acquisition of plant and machinery which is providing enduring benefit to the assessee? - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT - As decided in Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd. 2017 (4) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT expenditure towards payment of interest and loans taken for setting up industries by the assessee and financial charges , upfront fee , professional expenses etc. are allowable as revenue expenditure , we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT ( A ) on this issue. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Allowability of upfront fee and other charges as revenue expenditure. 3. Applicability of Supreme Court decisions cited by the assessee and the revenue. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The Revenue filed the appeal with a delay of 47 days. The Tribunal considered the condonation application and the reasons provided for the delay. After hearing the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 2. Allowability of Upfront Fee and Other Charges as Revenue Expenditure: The core issue was whether the upfront fee and other charges paid towards a loan for acquiring plant and machinery should be treated as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 1,97,90,436/- claimed by the assessee, arguing that these expenses were capital in nature as they were incurred for acquiring assets that provide enduring benefits. The assessee contended that these expenses should be treated as revenue expenditure, relying on various judicial decisions, including: - India Cements Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: The assessee argued that the nature of the expenditure should be considered, not the purpose of the loan. - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT: The assessee claimed that the expenses were deductible as business expenses. - DCIT vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd.: The assessee argued that the expenses were allowable as the business had commenced. The AO rejected these arguments, stating that the cited cases were factually different from the present case. 3. Applicability of Supreme Court Decisions: The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim by following the order for AY 2014-15 and the decision of the Supreme Court in DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. The Revenue challenged this, arguing that the facts of the cited case were different from the present case. The Tribunal examined the arguments and decisions cited by both sides. The Tribunal noted that the AO had disallowed the expenses based on the enduring benefit principle. However, the CIT(A) had allowed the expenses by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd., which held that such expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. It referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd., where it was held that expenditure towards payment of interest and other charges for setting up industries should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that allowed the upfront fee and other charges as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on the binding decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd., affirming that such expenditures are allowable as revenue expenses. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 18th October 2022.
|
