2018 (2) TMI 714 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds business expenditure claim, protecting interests & preventing losses.

DCIT, CC-7 (3), Mumbai Versus M/s Cowtown Land Development Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority, allowing the claimed business expenditure of Rs. 6,50,50,000. The payments were deemed ... Allowable busniss expenditure - amount paid in lieu of the shares of the litigating parties - Held that:- The declaration cum indemnity of all the recipients/concerned parties is available. We have also perused the orders from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Bombay, which clearly indicates that the assessee duly paid the impugned amounts in lieu of the shares of the litigating parties and the expenses were incurred to safeguard the business interest of the assessee, which is permissible under the Act. No evidence in any manner has been adduced by the Revenue contradicting the factual finding recorded by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Assessee entered into a development agreement on 29/10/2004 with Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd. at a consideration of ₹ 14.50 croers followed by supplemental agreement dated 22/02/2006 and deed of conveyance made on 08/11/2006 at agreed price of ₹ 23,04,80,219/- and the amount of ₹ 6.50 crores was made to the shareholders in respect of which supporting documents have been duly filed. It is evidently clear that the payment of ₹ 6.50 crores was made to these shareholders of Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd. for withdrawal of litigations and suits filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Bombay, so that the development of the said property could be smoothly undertaken without any hindrance, consequently, the expenditure was incurred to protect the business interest of the assessee and further to safeguard the assessee itself for further losses, resultantly, we find no infirmity in the order of the First Appellate Authority. The same is affirmed. The appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of project expenses of Rs. 6,50,50,000.2. Genuineness of the claim of payments.3. Confirmation of payments.4. Legal and business implications of the payments.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Project Expenses of Rs. 6,50,50,000:The Revenue contested the disallowance of project expenses amounting to Rs. 6,50,50,000, arguing that the payments were neither confirmed nor mentioned in any pledged deed or other documents filed by the assessee. The assessee, however, defended the expenses as necessary to safeguard business interests due to disputes among shareholders of Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd., which could have jeopardized the development rights of the property at Dahisar.2. Genuineness of the Claim of Payments:The assessee argued that the payments were made to various shareholders to resolve disputes and secure development rights. These payments were made through account payee cheques and were reflected in the books of accounts. The payments were claimed to be necessary to avoid potential losses of Rs. 25 crores and were made to ensure the withdrawal of litigations that could hinder the development project. The First Appellate Authority found merit in these submissions, noting that supporting documents, including letters acknowledging payments and affidavits from recipients, were provided.3. Confirmation of Payments:The Revenue's objection was that the confirmations were not on stamp papers. However, the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal found this objection without merit, considering the supporting evidence, such as letters, receipts, and affidavits from the recipients. The Tribunal noted that the payments were made through account payee cheques, and the recipients had duly acknowledged these payments. The Tribunal also referred to various judicial precedents to support the view that litigation expenses incurred to protect business interests are allowable as business expenditure.4. Legal and Business Implications of the Payments:The Tribunal analyzed the nature and purpose of the payments, concluding that they were made to protect the business interests of the assessee. The payments were necessary to ensure the development of the property without legal hindrances. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, which support the view that litigation expenses incurred to protect business interests are allowable as business expenditure. The Tribunal also emphasized that the reasonableness of the expenditure depends on the facts of each case and that it is not for the Revenue to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority, allowing the claimed business expenditure of Rs. 6,50,50,000. The Tribunal found that the payments were made to protect the business interests of the assessee and to safeguard against potential losses. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the order of the First Appellate Authority.