Tax Tribunal affirms revenue treatment for Feng Sui charges, disallows professional fees

The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision in a tax case involving the treatment of Feng Sui consultancy charges as revenue expenditure, not creating new assets, and the disallowance of professional charges under section 40(a)(i) of the Act due to payments for services rendered outside India not attracting tax liability in India. The Assessing Officer's appeal was dismissed, affirming the FAA's orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Treatment of Feng Sui consultancy charges as capital expenditure.
2. Disallowance of professional charges under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Treatment of Feng Sui consultancy charges as capital expenditure

The Assessing Officer (AO) challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding Feng Sui consultancy charges of Rs. 43.05 lakhs. The AO considered the expenditure as capital in nature, disallowing depreciation. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating the expenditure was revenue in nature as it did not create any new asset. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's decision, citing a similar case and confirming that the expenditure did not result in the creation of an asset. Therefore, the first ground of appeal was decided against the AO.

Issue 2: Disallowance of professional charges under section 40(a)(i) of the Act

The AO disallowed professional charges of Rs. 43.60 lakhs under section 40(a)(i) as tax was not deducted for payments to non-resident companies for technical services. The FAA, after reviewing the case and relevant tax laws, found that tax deduction was not required as the payments were for services rendered outside India and did not attract tax liability in India. The Tribunal agreed with the FAA, emphasizing that the non-resident entities did not provide technical services in India and had no permanent establishment. Referring to a similar case involving live coverage of cricket matches, the Tribunal upheld the FAA's decision, ruling that the tax deduction provisions were not applicable in this scenario. Consequently, the second ground of appeal was decided against the AO.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the AO was dismissed, and the orders of the FAA were upheld by the Tribunal.

---