9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal work-in-progress in respect of loans on which guarantee fees was paid. Disallowance of claim of cost of raising finance for specialized job as revenue expenditure - expenditure incurred for securing the use of money for a certain period was revenue expenditure. In the instant case, the assessee has secured the loan by creating a charge (hypothecation of its assets). Hence the ratio of the above mentioned two cases would squarely apply. Accordingly, it is held that the AO was not justified in making the disallowance - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 3356/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2020 - Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member And Smt. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT.D.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is of capital nature. 3. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, both the aforesaid grounds are covered in favour of the assessee in its own case concerning AY 2008-09 in ITA No. 704/Ahd/2012 order dated 12.06.2015. The relevant para of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced hereunder: 29. In the Revenue's appeal, the ground no.1 of the appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 50,90,96,000/- made on account of disallowance of claim of guarantee fees paid to Government of Gujarat. 30. Brief facts of the case are that the AO observed that the assessee paid guarantee fee of ₹ 5,69,35,000/- to the Govt. of Gujarat in consideration of guarantee issued by it for repayment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO further observed that the cost of raising the finance can also not be considered as revenue expenses for want of details. He, accordingly, disallowed ₹ 5,90,96,000/-. 32. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that guarantee fee was an annual recurring expenditure incurred by the assessee. Guarantee fee was payable to Govt. of Gujarat every year in respect of loans taken by the assessee and guaranteed by the Govt. of Gujarat. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd., 60 ITR 52 (SC), loan cannot be treated as asset or advantage resulting in enduring benefits. Guarantee fees paid to Govt. of Gujarat was in connection with raising of loans and enduring benefit or advantage could not be said to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under: 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) decided these issues in paras- 5.2 5.3 and 6.2 respectively by observing as under:- 5.2. I have considered the submissions of the ld.AR and the facts of the case. The issue relating to whether an item of expenditure lies in the capital or the revenue field has exercised the courts in numerous cases. From an analysis of such cases a few guiding principles/tests can be identified. One of the important tests for categorizing any expenditure as capital in nature is whether the laying out of the impugned expenditure results in the acquisition of creation of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be unrealistic to say that the appellant company could derive any undue advantage or collateral benefit by making such payment to the GOG. In view of the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (₹ 8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted. 6.2. I have considered the submissions of the ld.AR and the facts of the case. The jurisdictional Bench of ITAT has held in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech vs. ACIT, 92 TTJ 568, that in determining the nature of expenditure incurred for obtaining loan, it is irrelevant to consider the purpose of loan. The amount spent on stamp duty, lawyer fees, etc. for obtaining loa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
