Tribunal allows business deductions for written-off advances, TDS deposits, and depreciation on goodwill under Section 37(1)

The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple issues. The tribunal deleted additions made for advance receipts from customers, holding that the assessee correctly accounted income on a periodical basis following regular accounting standards. Regarding written-off advances to suppliers, the tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 37(1) read with Section 28, treating it as business loss rather than bad debt. The tribunal also permitted write-offs of TDS recoverable and rent deposits as legitimate business deductions. Additionally, excess TDS deposits that couldn't be recovered from the department were allowed as deductions. The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on goodwill, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on intangible assets.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Deletion of disallowance on account of advance from customers.
2. Addition in respect of advance received from customers for maintenance under Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC).
3. Disallowance of expenses claimed under the head 'advances written off.'
4. Disallowance of TDS recoverable written off.
5. Disallowance of rent deposit written off.
6. Disallowance of excess TDS deposited written off.
7. Levy of interest under sections 234B & 234D and withdrawal of interest under section 244A.
8. Admitting additional ground of appeal regarding depreciation on goodwill.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Disallowance on Account of Advance from Customers:

The Revenue's sole ground of appeal was that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,46,99,684/- on account of advance from customers, which were considered as receipts in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years (Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-08). The assessee, engaged in the business of elevators and escalators, followed the 'percentage of completion method' for accounting. The Tribunal reiterated that the advances received were not to be recognized as revenue in the year of receipt if the work was not completed. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, and the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

2. Addition in Respect of Advance Received from Customers for Maintenance under AMC:

The assessee's appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 56,26,481/- for advance received from customers under AMC. The Tribunal found that the issue was similar to the one raised by the Revenue and had been decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, noting that the assessee had correctly accounted for the income on a periodical basis as per its regular accounting standards.

3. Disallowance of Expenses Claimed under the Head 'Advances Written Off':

The assessee had written off advances amounting to Rs. 11,54,061/- given to suppliers. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, stating that it did not satisfy the conditions of Section 36(2). The Tribunal held that the claim should be allowed under Section 37(1) r.w.s. 28, as it was a loss incurred in carrying out the business, supported by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim.

4. Disallowance of TDS Recoverable Written Off:

The assessee had written off TDS recoverable from customers who neither provided TDS certificates nor deposited the TDS with the tax department. The Tribunal held that the write-off should be allowed as a bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2), as the income had been booked in earlier years. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim.

5. Disallowance of Rent Deposit Written Off:

The assessee had written off Rs. 39,732/- as rent deposit not refunded by the landlord due to repair expenses. The Tribunal held that the write-off should be allowed as it was an expenditure incurred for carrying out business activities. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim.

6. Disallowance of Excess TDS Deposited Written Off:

The assessee had inadvertently deposited excess TDS of Rs. 1,648/- and could not recover it from the department. The Tribunal held that the excess deposit should be allowed under Section 37(1) r.w.s. 28. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim.

7. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B & 234D and Withdrawal of Interest under Section 244A:

The issue of levy of interest was not argued and was treated as not pressed by the Tribunal.

8. Admitting Additional Ground of Appeal Regarding Depreciation on Goodwill:

The Revenue's appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to admit an additional ground regarding depreciation on goodwill. The Tribunal found that the additional ground was purely legal and admissible, supported by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Smiff Securities Ltd. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on goodwill.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed both appeals of the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues. The order was pronounced in open court on 17th September 2018.

---