9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 488 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of excess pre-commencement expenses - Determination of the commencement date of business operations - preliminary expenses prior to commencement of the business was eligible deduction u/s 35D of the Act i.e. ( 1/5th of amount for five years) and not whole of amount u/s 37(1) - HELD THAT -Provident Fund has been deducted from the month of June, 2008 onwards. On appreciation of the above documents, it is evident that business of the assessee was duly set up and commenced from June, 2008 and therefore, finding of the Assessing Officer that business of the assessee commenced only with effect from acquisition of the equity research unit of BNP Paribas Solutions under the slump sale agreement, is not found to be correct. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The ground of appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the commencement date of business operations for the purpose of allowing or disallowing pre-commencement expenses. 2. Applicability of Section 35D versus Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act for the deduction of expenses. 3. Initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and levy of interest under Sections 234B/244A. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of the Commencement Date of Business Operations: The primary issue revolved around the determination of the commencement date for the business operations of the assessee company. The Revenue contended that the business commenced only after the acquisition of the equity research business undertaking on 14.11.2008, as per the slump sale agreement. Conversely, the assessee argued that business operations commenced from 01.06.2008, when employees were transferred, and services began. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had set up its business by June 2008, evidenced by employee payroll, tax deductions, and service agreements. The Tribunal concluded that the business was indeed established and operational from June 2008, thus supporting the assessee's claim. 2. Applicability of Section 35D versus Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act: The Revenue treated the expenses incurred before 14.11.2008 as pre-commencement expenses, eligible for deduction under Section 35D, which allows amortization over five years. The assessee, however, claimed these expenses under Section 37(1) as revenue expenses incurred during the course of business. The Tribunal found that the expenses were operational and not preliminary, as the business had commenced by June 2008. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the entire expenditure of Rs. 20,80,75,902/- as deductible under Section 37(1), rejecting the Assessing Officer's application of Section 35D. 3. Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and Levy of Interest under Sections 234B/244A: The Revenue's appeal also included grounds related to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and the levy of interest under Sections 234B/244A. However, since the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee on the primary issue of business commencement and expense deduction, the grounds concerning penalties and interest were rendered moot. Consequently, these grounds were also allowed in favor of the assessee, as the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the business operations of the assessee commenced from 01.06.2008, thereby allowing the entire expenditure as deductible under Section 37(1). The Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented, including employee payroll, service agreements, and tax deductions, which collectively demonstrated that the business was set up and operational from the earlier date claimed by the assessee.
|
