IPO expenses disallowed as capital expenditure following Brooke Bond precedent but remanded for section 35D examination

ITAT Cochin upheld AO's disallowance of IPO expenses as capital expenditure, following SC precedent in Brooke Bond case. All IPO-related costs including advertisement, market research, travel, and postal expenses were deemed capital in nature as they directly relate to share capital expansion. However, ITAT remanded the matter to AO to examine assessee's alternative claim for deduction under section 35D as preliminary expenses and to recalculate interest under section 234C considering tax deductible at source provisions. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses relating to Initial Public Offer.
2. Correctness of computation of interest u/s. 234C of the Act.

Issue 1: Disallowance of expenses relating to Initial Public Offer:
The appeal concerned the disallowance of expenses related to an Initial Public Offer (IPO) by the assessee, a stockbroking company, for the assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claimed expenses of Rs. 29,57,136 as capital expenditure, considering them directly linked to expanding the company's capital base. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this decision, citing the Brooke Bond case. The appellant argued that indirect expenses were revenue in nature and not contingent on the IPO. The tribunal found the expenses directly linked to the IPO and upheld the disallowance, citing the Brooke Bond case and dismissing the appellant's reliance on other case laws.

Issue 2: Correctness of computation of interest u/s. 234C of the Act:
The second issue involved the computation of interest under section 234C of the Act. The appellant contended that interest should be computed after deducting "tax deductible at source" instead of the actual amount deducted. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, citing the Explanation to section 234C, which requires determining the "tax due on the returned income" by considering tax deductible at source. This issue was not adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A), so the tribunal directed the assessing officer to examine the claim in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the disallowance of IPO expenses as capital expenditure, following the Brooke Bond case. The alternative contention under section 35D of the Act was referred back to the assessing officer for examination. Additionally, the tribunal directed the assessing officer to re-examine the computation of interest under section 234C in light of the appellant's contentions. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

---