2007 (2) TMI 358 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Rules on Leasehold Payments, Tour Expenses, and Various Deductions; Partial Appeal Success.

The Tribunal concluded that the payment for leasehold rights was capital in nature and not deductible. It allowed foreign tour expenses but disallowed ... Deduction of 1/99th of the sum being proportionate rent in respect of amortization of payment for acquisition of leasehold rights - Lease for period of 99 years - HELD THAT:-We are aware that mere use of the word 'premium' in the agreement shall not make the character of the amount paid to MIDC as 'premium', if the combine reading of the agreement leads to some other conclusion. In this case, not only the word 'premium' has been used in all relevant terms of the agreement with Government concern MIDC, but also considering the terms of the agreement as a whole it is clear that the amount paid as 'premium' for acquisition of leasehold rights in the premises. There is no clause in this agreement to show that the amount paid by the assessee as advance rent for all future years and the lump sum payment of future year’s rent has been paid to avail some concession for advance payment of rent or for some other business consideration. The land in question is inheritable also as per the terms and conditions of the agreement with MIDC. Therefore, considering the terms of agreement as a whole, we hold that the consideration paid to MIDC as a price for obtaining the leasehold rights for a period of 99 years from MIDC in favour of the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the terms of the agreement entered into between the assessee-company and MIDC as a whole, we hold that the consideration paid by the assessee-company for obtaining the leasehold rights from MIDC in favour of the assessee for a period of 99 years is capital in nature and therefore, not allowable as deduction to the assessee. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. [1965 (4) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT], Durga Das Khanna v. CIT[1969 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], Aditya Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. CIT[1999 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Khimline Pumps Ltd. [2002 (9) TMI 94 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] would squarely apply to the facts of the case of the assessee, and being binding in nature, we decide the issue in ground of Appeal No. 10 of the Revenue in favour of the Revenue and the ground of Appeal No. 10 of the Revenue is allowed and the issue referred to the Special Bench by the President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Deduction of 1/99th of Rs. 2,04,00,000 for amortization of leasehold rights.2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 6,04,137 on account of provision for doubtful debts.3. Allowance of foreign tour expenses of Rs. 2,11,603.4. Allowance of guest house expenses of Rs. 3,22,310.5. Disallowance of Rs. 57,250 under section 40A(12).6. Deletion of additions of Rs. 2,76,937 under Rule 6B.7. Allowance of project development expenses of Rs. 6,41,829.8. Deletion of addition of Rs. 30,660 for payments made to clubs.9. Deletion of addition of Rs. 33,44,338 on account of MODVAT element in closing stock.10. Allowance of expenses on discount on issue of commercial paper of Rs. 1,31,70,489.11. Disallowance under Rule 6D of Rs. 1,14,207.12. Addition of sundry credit balances written back amounting to Rs. 8,62,773.13. Additional grounds for deduction of Rs. 6,04,137 in subsequent years.Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction of 1/99th of Rs. 2,04,00,000 for Amortization of Leasehold Rights:The Tribunal examined whether the payment of Rs. 2.04 crores to MIDC for acquiring leasehold rights for 99 years was capital or revenue in nature. It was concluded that the payment was capital in nature and not allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal referred to the terms of the agreement and relevant case laws, including CIT v. Khimline Pumps Ltd., to determine that the payment constituted a capital expenditure, providing an enduring benefit to the assessee.2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 6,04,137 on Account of Provision for Doubtful Debts:The Tribunal decided in favor of the Revenue due to the retrospective amendment to section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. The ground of Appeal No. 1 of the Revenue was allowed.3. Allowance of Foreign Tour Expenses of Rs. 2,11,603:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the foreign tour expenses of Mrs. A.V. Shah, citing consistency with decisions in earlier years where similar expenses were allowed. The ground of Appeal No. 2 of the Revenue was dismissed.4. Allowance of Guest House Expenses of Rs. 3,22,310:The Tribunal, agreeing with the Supreme Court's decision in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT, ruled in favor of the Revenue, disallowing the guest house expenses. The ground of Appeal No. 3 of the Revenue was allowed.5. Disallowance of Rs. 57,250 under Section 40A(12):The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the expenditure of Rs. 10,000 for each year of assessment for which representation fees were paid, as supported by previous Tribunal decisions. The ground of Appeal No. 4 of the Revenue was dismissed.6. Deletion of Additions of Rs. 2,76,937 under Rule 6B:The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, citing previous decisions in the assessee's own case and the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Allana Sons (P.) Ltd.. The ground of Appeal No. 5 of the Revenue was dismissed.7. Allowance of Project Development Expenses of Rs. 6,41,829:The Tribunal allowed the project development expenses, referencing earlier Tribunal decisions in the assessee's favor. The ground of Appeal No. 6 of the Revenue was dismissed.8. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 30,660 for Payments Made to Clubs:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the annual membership fees paid to clubs, consistent with previous Tribunal decisions. The ground of Appeal No. 7 of the Revenue was dismissed.9. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 33,44,338 on Account of MODVAT Element in Closing Stock:The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. The ground of Appeal No. 8 of the Revenue was dismissed.10. Allowance of Expenses on Discount on Issue of Commercial Paper of Rs. 1,31,70,489:The Tribunal allowed the expenses, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT and previous Tribunal decisions. The ground of Appeal No. 9 of the Revenue was dismissed.11. Disallowance under Rule 6D of Rs. 1,14,207:The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground, aligning with the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Aorow India Ltd. and previous Tribunal decisions. The ground No. 1 of the cross-objection was dismissed.12. Addition of Sundry Credit Balances Written Back Amounting to Rs. 8,62,773:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim, referencing previous Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. The ground No. 2 of the cross-objection was allowed.13. Additional Grounds for Deduction of Rs. 6,04,137 in Subsequent Years:The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the debts written off against the provision in subsequent years, consistent with previous Tribunal decisions. The additional grounds were allowed.Conclusion:The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee, providing detailed reasons and references to relevant case laws for each issue.