2025 (8) TMI 592 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Upholds Disallowance of Freight Cost Study Expenditure Under Section 115JB Book Profit Rules

The ITAT Chennai upheld the CIT(A)'s decision disallowing the AO's rejection of expenditure incurred on a study for optimizing freight costs, which was ... Disallowance of expenditure incurred towards getting a study done for optimizing freight expenditure on crud procurement - expenditure as accounted as provisions for capital work in progress in earlier years and after the project was decided to be abandoned, was written off in profit and loss account by claiming it under the head ‘other expenditure’ - AO has made the disallowances for the reasons that the expenditure was named as provision for capital work in progress and the assessee itself has added the same in the computation of book profit u/s. 115JB HELD THAT:- CIT(A) relying on the decision of Binani Cement [2015 (3) TMI 849 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd [2018 (6) TMI 1236 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that expenditure incurred towards study relating to optimization of freight expenditure on crude procurement by way of putting up a single point mooring in the earlier years, but written off during the previous year since the proposed project was abandoned is neither capital expenditure nor unascertained liability. AR has clarified that company has added back this amount in computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act as a diminution in value of investments as per explanation (i) to Section 115JB of the Act and not for the reason that it is an unascertained liability. We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A), therefore we uphold the same. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 1. ISSUES:1.1 Whether expenditure accounted as 'provision for capital work in progress' and subsequently written off when a project was abandoned is deductible as revenue expenditure or is an 'unascertained liability' disallowable.1.2 Whether the fact that the amount was added back in the computation of 'book profit u/s. 115JB' precludes its allowance in the normal income-tax computation.1.3 Whether expenditure incurred for a study that was later abandoned gives rise to a capital asset (intangible or otherwise) requiring capitalization, rather than being allowable as revenue expenditure.2. RULINGS / HOLDINGS:2.1 On issue 1.1: The expenditure accounted as 'provision for capital work in progress' but actually incurred and later written off on abandonment is not an 'unascertained liability' and is allowable as revenue expenditure; these expenses were 'not provisions but actually incurred in normal course of business.'2.2 On issue 1.2: The fact that the amount was added back in the computation of 'book profit u/s. 115JB' as a 'diminution in value of investments' does not automatically require its disallowance in the normal computation; addition in the book-profit computation was for a different statutory purpose and does not convert the expenditure into an unascertained liability.2.3 On issue 1.3: Expenditure incurred for conducting a study that produced no intangible asset and where the project was abandoned does not necessarily constitute capital expenditure; such expenses may be treated as revenue and allowed when they represent actual expenditure leading to 'ascertainment of failure.'3. RATIONALE:3.1 Applied statutory framework: consideration given to the tax treatment under the normal heads of income and the special provisions for 'book profit u/s. 115JB' (including Explanation (i) to Section 115JB) and the distinction between amounts disallowed as unascertained liabilities and those added back for the purposes of computing book profit.3.2 Precedential and doctrinal guidance: relied upon existing judicial authorities of the jurisdictional High Court and another High Court addressing written-off study/optimization expenses, and on the principle that 'the entry in the books of accounts cannot determine the allowability of an amount.' The tribunal accepted the proposition that 'mere use of word 'provision' will not make an entry into an unascertained liability.'3.3 Evaluation of competing contentions: the administrative position that addition to book profit equates to unascertained liability was rejected where the assessee demonstrated that the add-back in the book-profit computation was on account of 'diminution in value of investments' and not because the amount represented an unascertained liability; the alternative contention that the study created a capital asset was rejected on the facts because no intangible or other capital asset was shown to have arisen from the study.3.4 Conclusion of law applied to facts: where expenditure was actually incurred in the course of business, subsequently written off on abandonment of the project and not resulting in an identifiable capital asset, such expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure notwithstanding prior accounting as 'provision for capital work in progress' or its add-back in computing 'book profit u/s. 115JB.'