2024 (7) TMI 904 - HC - Income Tax

Subsidiary cannot claim business expenditure deductions for costs incurred supporting parent company operations under Section 37

M/s. Pipelic Energy Software India Pvt. Ltd., Presently known as Energy Solutions International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (3), Hyderabad

M/s. Pipelic Energy Software India Pvt. Ltd., Presently known as Energy Solutions International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the business expenditure incurred by the appellant for fulfilling contractual obligations of the parent company can be considered as business loss of the appellant company.2. Whether the expenditure incurred by the appellant can be allowed as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Business Expenditure and Business Loss:The appellant-company, incorporated on 19.12.1997, filed its return for the assessment year 1999-2000 declaring a loss of Rs. 55,68,141/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claimed expenditure, stating it was not incurred for the appellant's business but for providing support services to the parent company. The CIT(A) allowed the expenses as revenue expenditure, stating the appellant was ready to render services and consultations. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, stating that the holding company and subsidiary are separate entities, and the expenditure of one cannot be claimed by the other. The Tribunal further noted that the expenses were not for the appellant's business but for fulfilling the parent company's contractual obligations.2. Deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The appellant argued that the expenditure incurred was for participating in the parent company's project, aligning with its business objectives. The appellant cited several cases to support its claim, including:- Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: Contributions to public welfare funds connected to business are allowable deductions.- Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.: Expenditure benefiting both the assessee and a third party can still be deductible.- Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal vs. Royal Calcutta Turf Club: Expenses preventing business extinction are allowable deductions.The respondent countered with cases where similar deductions were disallowed, emphasizing that the expenditure must be for the assessee's own business. The Tribunal, agreeing with the respondent, held that the expenses were for the parent company's benefit, not the appellant's business, and thus not deductible under Section 37.Consideration and Judgment:The court considered whether the expenses incurred by the appellant for the parent company's projects could be treated as business expenses. It noted that the appellant did not undertake any business on its own and the expenses were not connected to its business activities. The court cited Section 37, which requires expenses to be incurred for the assessee's business to be deductible. The court concluded that the expenses were not for the appellant's business but for supporting the parent company, and thus not allowable as deductions.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the expenses incurred by the appellant for the parent company's projects cannot be considered as business expenses of the appellant and are not deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.