Tribunal grants relief on repair expenses, commission, upholds decision on R&D

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal, providing relief on the issues of repair expenses and commission paid, while upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on research and development expenditure.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Research and Development expenditure.
2. Disallowance of expenses incurred on repairs to the building.
3. Disallowance of commission paid.
4. Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Research and Development Expenditure
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the expenditure of Rs. 52,17,597 on research and development activities. The CIT(A) held that the expenses were incurred on improving the designs of existing machinery and were revenue in nature, thus allowable under section 35(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had provided necessary documents during appellate proceedings, which were also furnished before the AO. The Tribunal found no defect in the documents and concluded that the CIT(A)'s findings were judicious and well-reasoned. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Expenses Incurred on Repairs to the Building
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the repairs to the leased building as capital in nature. The Tribunal noted that the expenses were incurred on normal repairs to enable the assessee to use the leased premises for business purposes. The Tribunal referenced section 30 of the Act, which allows repair expenses incurred by a tenant as a deduction, regardless of whether they are 'current repairs'. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. HEDE Consultancy Ltd., which held that repair and renovation expenses on leased premises are revenue expenditures. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the expenditure under section 30, resulting in this ground being allowed.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Commission Paid
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the AO's disallowance of Rs. 18,48,636 in commission expenses. The CIT(A) had disallowed the commission because the parties to whom the commission was paid did not respond to notices issued under section 133(6). The Tribunal held that non-furnishing of information by third parties cannot be the sole basis for disallowance when the assessee has provided evidence of the expenses incurred in the normal course of business. The Tribunal noted that the commission was paid in accordance with agreements, and all payments were made through banks with applicable withholding tax deducted. The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Ltd., which held that non-receipt of replies to section 133(6) notices should not be a basis for disallowance. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the commission expenses under section 37(1), resulting in this ground being allowed.

Issue 4: Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C
The assessee's appeal included grounds challenging the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. These grounds were deemed general in nature and did not require specific adjudication by the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal (ITA No. 3847/Mum/2014) and partly allowed the assessee's appeal (ITA No. 4083/Mum/2014), providing relief on the issues of repair expenses and commission paid, while upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on research and development expenditure. The order was pronounced in the open court on December 28, 2017.

---