Appeal Dismissed: Amalgamation Expenses Allowed Under Section 35DD, Book Profits Accepted as Per Section 115JB

ITAT upheld the order of CIT(A) in favour of the assessee, holding that legal and consultancy expenses incurred in connection with amalgamation under a composite scheme of arrangement were eligible for amortisation under section 35DD. ITAT accepted that the assessee had correctly computed book profits under section 115JB, relying on Form 29B filed with the return, which had not been rejected by the AO. ITAT found the CIT(A)'s reasoning well-supported by sections 35DD and 115JB, and noted that the revenue had produced no contrary evidence. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether legal expenses and consultancy charges incurred in connection with a composite scheme of arrangement and amalgamation are capital in nature and liable to disallowance, or allowable as revenue expenditure and/or amortisable under section 35DD of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

1.2 Whether the re-computation of book profit under section 115JB by adding back amounts on account of extraordinary items, deferred tax and unabsorbed depreciation was justified, in disregard of the assessee's computation and Form 29B.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Nature and allowability of legal and consultancy expenses; application of section 35DD

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal noted the appellate authority's summary of section 35DD: deduction is available to an Indian company for expenditure, wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of amalgamation or demerger, incurred on or after 1 April 1999; the entire eligible expenditure is to be amortised and allowed in five equal instalments beginning with the previous year in which the amalgamation/demerger takes place; and expenditure allowed under section 35DD is not allowable under any other provision.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Assessing Officer had treated the entire amount of Rs. 2,54,64,869/- debited as legal expenses and consultancy charges (incurred in relation to amalgamation under a composite scheme) as capital expenditure and disallowed it in full.

2.3 The appellate authority examined the break-up of legal expenses and consultancy charges and found that a major portion of Rs. 2,05,11,106/- was in the nature of revenue expenditure, not linked to capital acquisition or structural advantage of enduring nature, and therefore allowable as revenue expenditure.

2.4 The appellate authority further found that the expenditure attributable to amalgamation, quantified at Rs. 49,53,764/-, satisfied the conditions of section 35DD and was therefore to be treated as "Deferred Revenue Expenses" and allowed in five equal instalments as mandated by that section.

2.5 The Tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed the amalgamation-related expenses in accordance with section 35DD and that the appellate authority's findings in paras 5.4 and 5.5 were coherent with the statutory scheme. The Departmental Representative merely relied on the assessment order and did not bring any contrary evidence or legal basis to dispute the classification between revenue expenditure and section 35DD-eligible amalgamation expenditure.

Conclusions

2.6 Legal expenses and consultancy charges of Rs. 2,05,11,106/- were held to be revenue in nature and allowable in full.

2.7 The balance expenditure of Rs. 49,53,764/- incurred towards amalgamation was held to be eligible for amortisation under section 35DD and therefore allowable in five equal instalments as "Deferred Revenue Expenses".

2.8 The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by treating the entire amount as capital expenditure was rejected, and the appellate authority's directions were upheld.

Issue 2: Re-computation of book profit under section 115JB; treatment of provisions, write-offs, deferred tax and unabsorbed depreciation

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.9 The appellate authority, while interpreting section 115JB, referred to Explanation 1, clause (i), which permits an increase in book profit by "the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset". It distinguished between (a) an amount set aside as a provision or retained, and (b) an amount written off against the value of an asset.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.10 The Assessing Officer had recomputed book profit under section 115JB by adding back an extraordinary item of Rs. 1,84,52,910/- and deferred tax of Rs. 70,02,985/- (and by implication considering unabsorbed depreciation), thereby departing from the assessee's computation and Form 29B.

2.11 The appellate authority held that under clause (i) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB, only amounts "set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset" can be added back. Where there is an actual write-off against the value of assets, such amount is not a "provision" retained but a write-off, and therefore falls outside the scope of clause (i). Consequently, write-offs cannot be added back to the net profit for computing book profit under section 115JB.

2.12 As regards deferred tax of Rs. 70,02,985/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 36,588/-, the appellate authority found, with reference to Form 29B (specifically Note No. 27), that these amounts had already been added back by the assessee in the course of computing book profit under section 115JB. The Assessing Officer had not rejected Form 29B submitted with the return nor demonstrated any error in it.

2.13 The Tribunal accepted the appellate authority's reasoning in para 7.9, noting that the assessee's computation of book profit strictly followed the statutory format and the adjustments mandated under section 115JB, including proper treatment of deferred tax and unabsorbed depreciation. No material was produced by the revenue to substantiate the recomputation or to show that the amounts in dispute were "provisions" within the meaning of Explanation 1.

Conclusions

2.14 The reworking of book profit under section 115JB by the Assessing Officer, including the addition of amounts representing write-offs and again adding deferred tax and unabsorbed depreciation already considered in Form 29B, was held to be unsustainable.

2.15 Only amounts actually set aside as "provision for diminution in the value of any asset" can be added back under clause (i) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB; amounts representing write-offs against asset values are excluded.

2.16 The Assessing Officer was directed to accept the computation of book profit under section 115JB as furnished by the assessee in Form 29B, and the appellate authority's deletion of the additions was upheld.

2.17 Consequently, all grounds raised by the revenue in respect of section 115JB were rejected, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed in entirety.

---