High Court deems expenditure revenue, not capital loss, in landmark ruling for Assessment Year 2009-10

The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, determining that the disallowed expenditure of Rs. 2,08,92,603 was revenue in nature for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Court emphasized that the expenditure related to operational activities under a concessionaire agreement and did not qualify as capital loss. Additionally, the Court held that the liability to pay interest on the bank guarantee amount accrued when the High Court allowed encashment, regardless of the payment date. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the nature of the expenditure and taxation in case of arbitration success.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the disallowed expenditure was capital or revenue in nature for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) regarding the disallowed expenditure of Rs. 2,08,92,603 by the respondent-assessee, primarily engaged in developing and operating Bus-Q-Shelters. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure as capital loss, but the Tribunal reversed the decision, stating it was revenue expenditure. The Revenue argued that the payment was capital expenditure based on a Supreme Court judgment and contended that even if it was revenue expenditure, it would not qualify for deduction in the said assessment year as the payment was made after 1st April, 2009.

The respondent-assessee had entered into a concessionaire agreement with the Delhi Transport Corporation for setting up bus shelters on a BOT basis. The respondent-assessee was required to pay a monthly fee to the Corporation and furnish bank guarantees as performance security. When the Corporation invoked the bank guarantee, the respondent-assessee obtained a stay order from the Delhi High Court, which was later vacated, allowing encashment. The respondent-assessee was directed to pay interest on the amount.

The High Court analyzed the nature of the expenditure, emphasizing that failure to perform the agreement's terms, including operation and maintenance of bus shelters and payment of the concessionaire fee, would result in revenue expenditure. It was noted that the respondent-assessee was not the owner of the shelters, and as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2014, under BOT schemes, depreciation is not allowed as the assessees are not project owners. The Court applied the Atherton test to determine capital or revenue expenditure, concluding that the expenditure was revenue in character.

The Court also addressed the second contention regarding the liability to pay interest on the bank guarantee amount, stating that the liability accrued when the High Court permitted encashment, regardless of the payment date. The Court rejected this contention and upheld the Tribunal's decision that the disallowed expenditure was revenue expenditure. The Tribunal's direction regarding taxation of any refunded amount in case of arbitration success by the respondent-assessee was also endorsed, concluding that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

---