Revenue expenditure and non-resident withholding rules: relocation consultancy and production-related payments were not disallowable

ITAT Mumbai held that consultancy charges for relocating and rearranging existing assets and furniture were revenue expenditure because no new asset or enduring advantage was created, so the capital disallowance was not justified. It also held that payments to non-residents for production-related job work and ancillary services were not subject to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) because they were not chargeable to tax in India and no withholding obligation arose. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted, and the assessee succeeded on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether consultancy charges incurred for re-allocation or re-adjustment of assets and furniture were capital expenditure or revenue expenditure; (ii) Whether payments made to non-residents without deduction of tax at source attracted disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether consultancy charges incurred for re-allocation or re-adjustment of assets and furniture were capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The expenditure was incurred for consultancy relating to relocation and rearrangement of existing assets, and no new asset or enduring advantage came into existence. The genuineness of the payment was not doubted, and the nature of the expenditure showed that it was not for acquisition of capital assets.

Conclusion: The expenditure was revenue in nature and the disallowance as capital expenditure was not justified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payments made to non-residents without deduction of tax at source attracted disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The payments were found to be for production-related job work and ancillary costs such as film production, courier and dubbing, and not for technical or professional services. The non-residents had no permanent establishment in India and the amounts were not chargeable to tax in India under sections 4, 5 and 9, so the withholding obligation did not arise.

Conclusion: Section 40(a)(i) did not apply and the disallowance was rightly deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure incurred for relocation or rearrangement of existing assets, without creation of a new asset or enduring benefit, is revenue expenditure, and payments to non-residents are not disallowable under section 40(a)(i) unless the sums are chargeable to tax in India and tax deduction is legally attracted.

---