2025 (4) TMI 1482 - AT - Income Tax

Club expenses allowed as business expenditure when AO fails to prove non-business nature beyond nomenclature

ITAT Delhi allowed club expenses as business expenditure, finding AO disallowed them based solely on nomenclature without demonstrating non-business ... Addition on account of Club Expenses - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the submissions/arguments/contentions of the AR. AO had not demonstrated the club expenditure as non-business expenditure. It seemed that the AO had disallowed this expenditure by nomenclature of the expenditure only. We do not see any justification therein. Therefore, the same is allowed as business expenditure. Disallowance of exchange rate difference - HELD THAT:- The tax treatment of foreign exchange gains or losses differs from its accounting treatment. For tax purposes, the revenue transactions resulting foreign exchange gains/losses are taxable/deductible being revenue in nature. Here, in the present case, the expenditure was allowed in the preceding AY as per the claim but not the exchange rate fluctuation in the relevant year though the same was crystalized/materialized in the relevant year. AO has not raised any doubt on the claim of expenditure of US $ 39,000/- in the preceding year. The encashment of said cheque, which happened in the relevant year resulting further expenditure due to the exchange rate difference was not allowed on the reasoning that it pertained to the prior period. We are of the considered view that this expenditure is held to have crystalized in the relevant year and thus, it has to be allowed as business expenditure. We therefore, delete the disallowance on this score. Loss on closure of the stores - HELD THAT:- The only requirement which has to be seen is that the expenditure is of revenue nature and not capital nature. There are series of decisions wherein the Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court that has laid down the principle that if an expenditure is incurred for doing the business in a more convenient and profitable manner and has not resulted in brining any new asset into existence then such expenditure is allowable business expenditure. It is also pertinent to note that in the case in hand, the expenditure has been incurred; prima-facie, for assets in respect of the existing business and are capital in nature. However, this issue is restored back to the AO for verification and doing needful. If the expenditure is of revenue in nature, then the same has to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1) and if new assets have come into existence on which depreciation have been claimed in preceding year(s), then this loss has to be dealt through the Block of assets (WDV) showing sale value of the abandoned assets as NIL and allowing depreciation on the reduced WDV as per the law. In view of the above observations, the issue is being remitted to the AO for deciding it afresh as per the law. Taxability of interest on the income tax refund - The dispute before us is confined to the quantum of interest and not the taxability of it per se. Therefore, this issue is remitted back to the AO for verification and taxing the actual amount of interest paid by the income tax Department on the refund u/s 244A of the Act during the relevant year. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:Whether the club expenses amounting to Rs. 6,205/- incurred by the assessee are allowable as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Whether the exchange rate difference of Rs. 3,66,911/- arising on payment of renewal fees under a foreign license agreement qualifies as a revenue expenditure deductible in the relevant assessment year or is a prior period expense.Whether the loss of Rs. 11,90,861/- on account of closure of certain stores and renovation expenses is allowable as business expenditure or is a capital loss, and the appropriate treatment thereof.Whether the Assessing Officer ought to allow depreciation on the amount disallowed (raised without prejudice).Whether the addition of Rs. 8,37,408/- on account of interest on income tax refunds under section 244A, based on entries in Form 26AS but not actually received by the assessee, is justified.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISClub Expenses (Rs. 6,205/-)Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act allows deduction of any expenditure (not being capital expenditure or personal expenses) laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The principle is that business-related entertainment expenses are deductible if they are bona fide and incurred for business purposes.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer disallowed the club expenses merely on the nomenclature without demonstrating that the expenditure was not for business purposes. The Tribunal found no justification for such disallowance and accepted the assessee's submission that the expenses were incurred by the Director entertaining guests for business purposes. The amount was also minuscule relative to the turnover of Rs. 45 crores, negating any inference of personal expenditure.Key Findings and Application of Law: The Tribunal held that the club expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business and therefore allowable under section 37(1).Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue failed to provide evidence or reasoning to rebut the bona fide nature of the expenditure.Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 6,205/- was deleted and the expenditure allowed as business expenditure.Prior Period Expenses - Exchange Rate Difference (Rs. 3,66,911/-)Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 43A and 43AA of the Income Tax Act deal with foreign exchange fluctuations and their tax treatment. Accounting principles treat exchange differences arising on foreign currency transactions as revenue or capital depending on the nature of the underlying transaction. For tax purposes, revenue nature exchange differences are deductible.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee had paid a renewal fee of US $39,000 under a license agreement, which was allowed as expenditure in the preceding year. However, the exchange rate difference crystallized only in the relevant assessment year when the cheque was encashed. The Assessing Officer disallowed the exchange rate difference on the ground that it was a prior period expense.The Tribunal analyzed that foreign exchange gains or losses arise from cross-border transactions and their accounting treatment does not necessarily dictate tax treatment. Since the actual payment and crystallization of exchange difference occurred in the relevant year, the expenditure was rightly claimed in that year under the mercantile system of accounting.Key Evidence and Application of Law: The Tribunal noted that the AO did not dispute the original expenditure claim of US $39,000 in the preceding year but only the exchange difference in the current year. The Tribunal held that the exchange difference was a revenue expenditure deductible in the relevant year.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's contention that the expenditure related to prior period was rejected as it ignored the timing of crystallization of the exchange difference.Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 3,66,911/- was deleted and the expenditure allowed as business expenditure.Loss on Closure of Stores and Renovation (Rs. 11,90,861/-)Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 37(1) allows deduction of revenue expenses wholly and exclusively for business. The Bombay High Court decisions in Rediff.com India Ltd. and Idea Cellular Ltd. held that expenditure incurred on abandonment of business assets is allowable if it is revenue in nature and no new asset has come into existence. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have established that expenditure incurred for doing business in a more convenient and profitable manner, which does not create a new asset, is allowable as revenue expenditure.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee closed down certain stores which were non-economically viable, incurring losses on plant and machinery installed therein. The AO disallowed the loss treating it as capital in nature. The Tribunal observed that the issue requires detailed verification to determine whether the expenditure is revenue or capital in nature.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that if the expenditure is revenue in nature, it is allowable under section 37(1). If capital assets were abandoned and depreciation claimed earlier, the loss should be adjusted in the block of assets by showing sale value as nil and allowing depreciation on reduced written down value.Application of Law to Facts: Since the nature of the expenditure was not conclusively established on record, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law and judicial precedents.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee relied on favorable precedents allowing such losses, while the Revenue maintained the capital nature of the loss. The Tribunal balanced both and remitted the matter for verification.Conclusion: The issue was restored to the AO for fresh decision as per law.Depreciation on Disallowed AmountThe assessee raised a ground without prejudice that depreciation should be allowed on the disallowed amount. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide this issue but the remand on the loss on closure of stores implicitly covers the treatment of depreciation if applicable.Interest on Income Tax Refund (Rs. 8,37,408/-)Relevant Legal Framework: Section 244A of the Income Tax Act provides for payment of interest on delayed refunds of income tax. Such interest is taxable in the hands of the recipient.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The dispute was confined to the quantum of interest credited as per entries in Form 26AS but not actually received by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the taxability of interest per se was not in dispute, only the amount.Key Findings and Application of Law: The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the actual amount of interest paid by the Income Tax Department and for taxing the correct amount accordingly.Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the AO for verification and appropriate taxation.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning includes:'The AO had not demonstrated the club expenditure as non-business expenditure. It seemed that the AO had disallowed this expenditure of Rs. 6,205/- by nomenclature of the expenditure only. We do not see any justification therein. Therefore, the same is allowed as business expenditure.''The expenditure of US $ 39,000/- was allowed in the preceding AY as per the claim but not the exchange rate fluctuation in the relevant year though the same was crystalized/materialized in the relevant year. ... In view of the facts as mentioned above, we are of the considered view that this expenditure is held to have crystalized in the relevant year and thus, it has to be allowed as business expenditure.''If the expenditure is of revenue in nature, then the same has to be allowed as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act and if new assets have come into existence on which depreciation have been claimed in preceding year(s), then this loss has to be dealt through the Block of assets (WDV) showing sale value of the abandoned assets as NIL and allowing depreciation on the reduced WDV as per the law.''The dispute before us is confined to the quantum of interest and not the taxability of it per se. Therefore, this issue is remitted back to the AO for verification and taxing the actual amount of interest paid by the income tax Department on the refund under section 244A of the Act during the relevant year.'Core principles established include the allowance of bona fide business expenses under section 37(1), proper timing of recognition of foreign exchange differences under mercantile accounting principles and tax law, the distinction between revenue and capital expenditures in abandonment losses, and the necessity of factual verification for interest income on refunds.Final determinations on each issue were:Club expenses disallowance deleted and allowed as business expenditure.Exchange rate difference disallowance deleted and allowed as business expenditure.Loss on closure of stores remanded to AO for fresh decision based on nature of expenditure and applicable law.Interest on income tax refund remanded to AO for verification of actual amount and correct taxation.