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>Tribunal Decision: Scrutiny of Expenditure Claim, Upfront Fee Disallowance, Penalty Deletion</h1> <h3>Vatika Ltd Versus DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi</h3> Vatika Ltd Versus DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was empowered to examine the claim of the allowability of expenses from all angles.2. Whether the expenditure of Rs. 2,69,66,400/- being 1/5th of Rs. 13,48,31,985/- claimed under section 35D of the Income Tax Act is allowable.3. Whether the revenue is correct in disallowing the claim of Rs. 2,24,72,631/-.4. Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is justified.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Empowerment of AO to Examine Claims:The Tribunal examined whether the AO was empowered to scrutinize the claims of the assessee. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to allow the claims after 'proper verification,' which implied ascertaining whether the expenditure was eligible for deduction under the Income Tax Act. The AO verified the claims and allowed some while disallowing others. The Tribunal upheld the AO's actions, stating that the AO was within his rights to examine the claims' allowability under the Income Tax Act.2. Allowability of Expenditure under Section 35D:The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,69,66,400/- (1/5th of Rs. 13,48,31,985/-) paid as placement fee to M/s Baer Capital Partners International Ltd. The AO disallowed the claim due to non-deduction of tax at source under section 195. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the expenditure was capital in nature and not related to public issue, thus not covered under section 35D. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the assessee failed to establish the nature of services rendered by Baer Capital Partners and the payment was related to raising capital, making it a capital expenditure not eligible for deduction under section 35D or section 37(1).3. Disallowance of Rs. 2,24,72,631/-:The assessee claimed expenditure on upfront fee paid to M/s WDC Ventures Ltd for subscription of debentures. The AO disallowed the claim due to non-deduction of tax at source. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting that the agreement specified the liability of upfront fee payment rested with the existing shareholders, not the assessee. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the liability for payment was on the existing shareholders, and the assessee could not claim it as its expenditure.4. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 95,07,003/- for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income related to an addition of Rs. 2,79,70,000/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. However, the Tribunal noted that the coordinate bench had deleted the addition of Rs. 2,79,70,000/- in ITA No. 2183/Del/2012 and ITA No. 2978/Del/2012. Consequently, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also deleted, as the addition on which it was based no longer survived.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the AO's examination of claims, disallowed the expenditure under section 35D and section 37(1) due to the capital nature of the expenses, confirmed the disallowance of the upfront fee, and deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) following the deletion of the related addition.
TaxTMI 