Tribunal allows Revenue's claim on travel expenses, dismisses disallowance on foreign services. Re-examination directed.

The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's grounds by reducing the disallowance of traveling and conveyance expenditure to Rs.1.5 lakhs for one assessment year and Rs.50,000 for another. It dismissed the Revenue's grounds on the disallowance of expenses for professional services rendered outside India without tax deduction. The Tribunal directed a re-examination of the nature of the subsidy received by the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance out of traveling and conveyance expenditure.
2. Disallowance of expenses on the ground of payments made towards professional services rendered outside India without tax deduction.
3. Nature of subsidy received by the assessee and its tax treatment.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance out of Traveling and Conveyance Expenditure:

The first common grievance of the Revenue relates to the disallowance of traveling and conveyance expenditure. The assessing officer, upon verification, observed that the majority of the bills were in the names of individuals and not properly billed to the company, leading to a disallowance of 25% of the claimed expenditure. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, finding the expenditure properly vouched and verifiable. Upon appeal, the Tribunal noted that while the assessee explained the expenses as business-related and properly accounted for, the deficiencies noted by the assessing officer could not be ignored. However, the Tribunal found the 25% disallowance excessive and reduced it to Rs.1.5 lakhs for the assessment year 2004-05 and Rs.50,000 for the assessment year 2005-06, partially allowing the Revenue's grounds.

2. Disallowance of Expenses for Professional Services Rendered Outside India:

The second issue concerns the disallowance of expenses for professional services rendered outside India without tax deduction. The assessing officer disallowed these expenses, arguing that the payments were made towards professional services rendered outside India without tax deduction at source, invoking provisions of section 5(2)(a) and section 195 of the I.T. Act. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, following the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2003-04, where it was found that payments made by the branch office outside India to agents outside the country did not fall within the provisions of section 195(1). The Tribunal upheld this reasoning, noting that as long as the receipts/expenditure of the Branch Offices abroad are clubbed in the accounts of the assessee's Head Office, the payments made to the Branch Offices merely constitute payment by one hand to the other of the same person. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds on this issue.

3. Nature of Subsidy Received by the Assessee:

The third issue involves the nature of the subsidy received by the assessee, which was treated as revenue in nature by the assessing officer. The assessee claimed the subsidy, in the form of customs and excise duty exemption, as capital in nature. The assessing officer, invoking provisions of section 28(iii) and 28(iii)(c) of the I.T. Act, treated the subsidy as taxable revenue, arguing that the waiver of customs and excise duty was another form of cash assistance. The CIT(A) confirmed this view, referencing various judicial decisions. On appeal, the Tribunal found that the issue required re-examination in light of the STPI Scheme and relevant judicial precedents. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to conduct a purpose test of the subsidy and examine the applicability of section 43(1) of the Act before reaching a conclusion, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the Revenue and allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing a re-examination of the subsidy issue by the assessing officer.

---