TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Security deposit not deductible as expense for A.Y. 2008-09</h1> <h3>Mahle Anand Filter Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Mahle Filter Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-6 (1), New Delhi</h3> Mahle Anand Filter Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Mahle Filter Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-6 (1), New Delhi - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of security deposit as deduction for A.Y. 2008-09.Analysis:1. The assessee contested the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the disallowance of a security deposit of &8377; 5.8 crores, which was made by the Revenue and upheld by all Appellate Authorities. The assessee had entered into a lease agreement where it paid the security deposit, but due to unforeseen circumstances leading to a dispute, the assessee agreed not to claim the security deposit. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction, citing impermissibility, and this decision was upheld by the CIT(A) and the ITAT based on the Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. 343 ITR 245 (Del.) judgment.2. The Senior Counsel for the assessee argued that the Triveni Engineering case was not applicable due to unique circumstances. The counsel highlighted the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Madras Auto Services (P.) Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC), stating that the amount paid as damages in the course of business should be allowed as a deduction. The Court noted that the security deposit was given for securing premises for business purposes, and the character of the amount was capital in nature, even though the assessee agreed not to claim it.3. The Court referred to the Triveni Engineering case, which dealt with a similar situation and held that security deposits were given for obtaining premises for business use, making it a capital asset. The Court rejected the argument that the payment was a revenue expenditure due to the dispute, emphasizing that the character of the amount remained capital, and the assessee merely agreed not to claim it. The Court concluded that no question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 