DTAA non-discrimination and accrual principles restricted disallowance, allowed deductions, and cut an excessive stock addition.

Article 26(3) of the India-US DTAA was applied to neutralise the discriminatory effect of section 40(a)(i), so disallowance of remittance to a non-resident could not be sustained even if the sum was otherwise chargeable to tax in India. Administrative fee for 1-1-2000 to 31-3-2000 was deductible because the liability accrued only when RBI approval was granted, not in the earlier service period, and the fee for 1-1-2001 to 31-3-2001 was also allowable as the liability had arisen during the year with reasonable certainty under the then current account regime. Leasehold improvement expenditure was treated as revenue, foreign exchange fluctuation loss was allowable on accrual, and the stock discrepancy addition was reduced because the records were unreliable but the original estimate was excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Article 26(3) of the India-US DTAA prevented invocation of section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for disallowance of the remittance to the non-resident; (ii) whether the administrative fee attributable to 1-1-2000 to 31-3-2000 was a prior period item or accrued only in the relevant previous year; (iii) whether the administrative fee attributable to 1-1-2001 to 31-3-2001 was deductible; (iv) whether leasehold improvement expenditure was capital or revenue in nature; (v) whether foreign exchange fluctuation loss was allowable; and (vi) whether the estimated addition on account of stock discrepancies could be sustained in full.

Issue (i): whether Article 26(3) of the India-US DTAA prevented invocation of section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for disallowance of the remittance to the non-resident.

Analysis: The payment to the non-resident fell within the class of interest, royalties and other disbursements covered by the non-discrimination clause. Under section 90(2), the treaty provision prevailed to the extent it was more beneficial. The treaty neutralised the discriminatory effect of section 40(a)(i), which then applied only to payments outside India to non-residents.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could not be sustained on this ground, even on the assumption that the sum was chargeable to tax in India.

Issue (ii): whether the administrative fee attributable to 1-1-2000 to 3-31-2000 was a prior period item or accrued only in the relevant previous year.

Analysis: The liability depended upon RBI approval under the then prevailing foreign exchange regime, and such approval was granted only on 30-6-2000. On the principles governing accrual of liability, the expenditure could not be treated as having accrued earlier merely because the services related to an earlier period.

Conclusion: The amount relatable to 1-1-2000 to 31-3-2000 was deductible and was not to be treated as a prior period expense.

Issue (iii): whether the administrative fee attributable to 1-1-2001 to 31-3-2001 was deductible.

Analysis: After the coming into force of FEMA, the remittance was a current account transaction and did not require RBI permission. The assessee had a reasonable basis for estimation based on the earlier billing pattern, and the liability had arisen during the year with reasonable certainty.

Conclusion: The amount relatable to 1-1-2001 to 31-3-2001 was allowable as a deduction.

Issue (iv): whether leasehold improvement expenditure was capital or revenue in nature.

Analysis: The items comprised alterations, interior work, wiring, flooring, partitioning and similar works undertaken to facilitate business operations. They did not bring into existence an enduring capital asset for the assessee; the expenditure was incurred to make the business premises more efficiently usable.

Conclusion: The expenditure was revenue in nature and the disallowance was unsustainable.

Issue (v): whether foreign exchange fluctuation loss was allowable.

Analysis: The assessee consistently accounted for exchange differences at year-end in accordance with its accounting practice. The loss was not capital in nature and was not a mere notional item; a liability arising from exchange variation could be recognised on accrual basis.

Conclusion: The foreign exchange fluctuation loss was allowable.

Issue (vi): whether the estimated addition on account of stock discrepancies could be sustained in full.

Analysis: The stock records were found unreliable and the trading results could not be accepted at face value, but the entire addition of Rs. 5 crores was held to be excessive on the material available. A reasonable estimate had to be made on the available record, balancing revenue protection and fairness.

Conclusion: The addition was reduced to Rs. 3 crores.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was substantially allowed, with the assessee succeeding on the principal deduction claims and obtaining reduction of the estimated trading addition, while the overall result remained only partly favourable.

Ratio Decidendi: A treaty non-discrimination clause can override a domestic disallowance provision that discriminates against non-resident payments, and a liability that arises with legal certainty during the year is deductible even if quantification or billing occurs later.

---