Assessee wins appeal against improper scrutiny, disallowance of expenses overturned. Revenue's appeal dismissed.

The assessee successfully argued that the jurisdictional error occurred when the limited scrutiny was converted into complete scrutiny without proper approval, rendering all additions illegal. The disallowance of professional expenses and business promotion expenses was overturned by the Bench, emphasizing the importance of legal and professional expenses for compliance and legitimate business promotion. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed, with the order pronounced on 20th September 2022.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional error in converting limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny.
2. Disallowance of professional expenses of Rs. 18,07,142/-.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 57,19,037/- on account of legal and professional expenses.
4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,42,90,200/- on account of business promotion expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Error in Converting Limited Scrutiny to Complete Scrutiny:
The assessee contended that the Ld. AO exceeded his jurisdiction by converting the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny without obtaining the mandatory approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax as required under the Board's Instruction No. 5/2016. The Bench agreed with the assessee, stating that the examination of expenditures unrelated to TDS in a limited scrutiny case circumvents the provision requiring mandatory approval for such a conversion. The Ld. CIT(A)'s justification was found inadequate as no reason was cited to show how TDS credit impacted the expenditure and refund. Thus, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO was deemed vitiated, making all additions illegal.

2. Disallowance of Professional Expenses of Rs. 18,07,142/-:
The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition on the grounds that relevant invoices were not presented during the assessment proceedings. However, the Bench noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had wide powers under Section 250(4) of the Act to call for comments from the AO or make an enquiry himself. The assessment order indicated that the Ld. AO acknowledged the payment for professional services related to legal and tax implications of investments. The Bench opined that expenses for legal opinions on regulatory compliance are not capital expenditures as they do not add value to the investment but ensure legal conformity. Therefore, the disallowance was not sustained.

3. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 57,19,037/- on Account of Legal and Professional Expenses:
The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without calling for a remand report. The Bench observed that the assessee had placed on record invoices and agreements related to professional services from Ernst & Young LLP, J. Sagar Associates, and KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. AO disallowed these expenses citing lack of evidence and non-revenue generation. However, the Bench noted that professional expenses ensure business compliance with laws and do not necessarily generate immediate revenue. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly interfered with the Ld. AO's findings, and thus, the Revenue's ground was disallowed.

4. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1,42,90,200/- on Account of Business Promotion Expenses:
The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without adequate evidence. The Bench noted that the assessee provided detailed invoices and audit finance statements for business promotion expenses, including participation charges and promotional activities for online gaming. The Ld. AO disallowed these expenses due to lack of evidence, but the Ld. CIT(A) considered all relevant documents. The Bench found that the expenses were incurred for legitimate business promotion and were correctly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Revenue's ground was disallowed.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Bench pronounced the order in the open court on 20th September 2022.

---