2018 (2) TMI 2081 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal success: Legal charges re-assessed, reduced disallowance.

The appeal challenged the disallowance of Legal & Professional Charges as capital expenditure for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Commissioner of ... Nature of expenditure - Legal & Professional Charges - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the cited order of the Tribunal for AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 we find that the issue has been restored back by the Tribunal we restore the issue to the file of AO limited to the extent of making such verifications in respect of payments made to Dr. May Pharma Consult GMBH, which are claimed as expenditure incurred for the purpose of business. After conducting necessary verification, the AO is directed to decide this issue in accordance of law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:Disallowed Legal & Professional Charges as Capital ExpenditureAnalysis:The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12 challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowance of Legal & Professional Charges amounting to Rs.18.70 Lacs. The Assessing Officer considered these charges as capital in nature, leading to their disallowance as revenue expenditure. The primary contention of the assessee was that the charges should be allowed as revenue expenditure and not treated as capital expenditure. The facts reveal that the charges were related to product registration fees, patent registration, and forging of license agreements. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, reducing the disallowance to Rs.18.27 Lacs out of the total amount. The assessee, still dissatisfied, further appealed to the Appellate Tribunal.The Authorized Representative for the Assessee highlighted that similar disallowances were made in previous assessment years, which were contested up to the Tribunal level and subsequently restored back with certain directions. The Tribunal's order for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10 directed the Assessing Officer to verify the purpose of business and the services rendered by the party to the assessee in question. In light of this precedent, the Appellate Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification on similar lines. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the disallowance of Legal & Professional Charges as capital expenditure, emphasizing the need for verification of the purpose of business and services rendered by the concerned party. The decision to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for further examination aligns with the principles established in previous judicial precedents, ensuring a fair and thorough assessment of the disputed charges.