Mawa project expenses deemed revenue, allowable under Income Tax Act

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on the Mawa project was revenue in nature and allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. It concluded that the expenses did not create any enduring benefit and should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and directed the AO to delete the addition, affirming the CIT (A)'s decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure of Rs. 1,27,20,969/- incurred on the Mawa project is a pre-operative expense and capital in nature, thus not deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the Mawa project constitutes a new business unconnected with the existing business of the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Expenditure:
The primary contention was whether the expenditure of Rs. 1,27,20,969/- should be considered as capital or revenue in nature. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated it as a pre-operative expense for a new project, thus capital in nature. However, the assessee argued that the expenditure was for general overheads, marketing, and office expenses, none of which created any asset or enduring benefit. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the expenditure on salaries, wages, marketing, professional fees, and travel does not fall in the capital field and should be treated as revenue expenditure.

2. New Product vs. New Business:
The AO argued that the Mawa project was a new business unrelated to the existing ice-cream business, thus constituting a new business. The assessee countered this by referring to its Memorandum of Association (MoA), which included the production of milk products as part of its business objectives. The Tribunal noted that both ice-cream and Mawa are dairy products, thus falling under the same business umbrella. The Tribunal emphasized that the manufacture of Mawa, a milk product, was within the scope of the assessee's declared business activities and not a separate new business.

3. Interlacing of Accounts, Management, and Control:
The Tribunal examined whether there was interlacing of control, management, and accounts between the existing business and the Mawa project. The AO failed to establish that the Mawa project was entirely separate from the ice-cream business. The Tribunal found that both divisions were under the same management and financially interconnected, thus supporting the assessee's claim of interlacing and interdependence.

4. Aborted Expenditure:
The Tribunal referenced legal precedents stating that revenue expenditure on an aborted project, such as salaries, wages, and other operational expenses, is allowable. Since the Mawa project was eventually aborted and did not result in any capital asset, the Tribunal concluded that the expenditure should be treated as allowable revenue expenditure.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT (A)'s decision, holding that the expenditure incurred on the Mawa project was revenue in nature and allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, directing the AO to delete the addition. The order was pronounced in the open court on 28th August 2015.

---