Appeal partly allowed: slump sale expenses remanded, PF grace payment accepted, software and consultancy allowed under 37(1)

ITAT Ahmedabad partly allowed the assessee's appeal. On the issue of pro-rata allocation of expenses post slump sale (25.03.2017 to 31.03.2017), the matter was remanded to the AO to verify from the books of both entities whether any such expenditure was actually claimed and to decide afresh in accordance with law. The disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund was deleted, holding that payment made on the next working day when the due date fell on a Sunday is deemed timely. Disallowances relating to software expenditure and consultancy fees (including for US FDA approval) were also deleted, both being held revenue in nature allowable under section 37(1).

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether a pro-rata portion of loss from discontinued operations for the period after effective date of a slump sale is disallowable where the assessee contends no post-transfer expenses were incurred or claimed.

2. Whether employees' contributions to Provident Fund deposited on the next working day where the statutory due date fell on a Sunday are disallowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act.

3. Whether expenditure described as software expenses (licenses, validation modules, data management tools, renewals) is capital in nature or allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1).

4. Whether consultancy fees paid for obtaining US-FDA regulatory approval constitute capital expenditure (enduring benefit/creation of asset) or are revenue expenditure allowable under section 37(1).

5. Procedural issue: extent of burden on Revenue to establish that an alleged deduction was not claimed and whether remand to Assessing Officer is required for factual verification.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Pro-rata loss after slump sale (disallowance of Rs. 55,53,311/-)

Legal framework: Deductions are allowable only for amounts claimed in the return/books of account; Assessing Officer may disallow illegitimately claimed items but must base disallowance on material. Transfer of undertaking on slump sale effects vesting of assets, liabilities and operations with transferee from agreed effective date.

Precedent Treatment: Tribunal relied on principle that no disallowance can be made for an allowance/expenditure not claimed by assessee; consistency and contemporaneous records govern factual attribution.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessee produced the slump sale agreement, audited financials of the transferee and an affidavit asserting no post-transfer expenditure was incurred or claimed. The CIT(A) and AO proceeded on a pro-rata presumption without adducing material contradicting the assessee's records. Given that the question of whether any expenditure for 25.03.2017-31.03.2017 was in fact claimed required verification of books of both entities, the Tribunal held that fact-finding was incomplete and a blind prorata computation was arbitrary.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - disallowance cannot rest on pure presumption where contemporaneous books / transferee accounts and sworn statements indicate transfer of operations; remand is appropriate where factual verification by AO is necessary. Obiter - comments on natural justice and arbitrariness in prorata approach.

Conclusions: Issue set aside to AO for fresh adjudication. AO to examine books of both parties, supporting documents and audited financials and decide afresh after giving opportunity to assessee. Ground allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 2 - Employees' contribution to Provident Fund deposited on next working day (disallowance under s.36(1)(va), Rs. 7,45,642/-)

Legal framework: Section 36(1)(va) disallows deduction in respect of employees' contribution to Provident Fund unless deposited as per statutory provisions; General Clauses Act, 1897, s.10 (formerly s.8) provides that where act is required to be done within prescribed period and last day is a holiday/office closed, act done on next working day deemed within time.

Precedent Treatment: Tribunal relied on coordinate decisions holding deposits made on next working day where due date fell on Sunday/holiday to be within time (e.g., ITAT decisions cited). Authority of higher courts on strictness of s.36(1)(va) was considered but Tribunal followed General Clauses Act jurisprudence and recent Tribunal precedents.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that due date 15.01.2017 fell on a Sunday and that deposit on 16.01.2017 was compelled by holiday. Applying s.10 General Clauses Act and consistent Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal held that the deposit should be deemed made within prescribed time and that a one-day delay occasioned solely by a holiday does not attract disallowance. The Tribunal distinguished reliance on authorities upholding strictness where no holiday justification exists.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - deposit on next working day where due date is a holiday must be deemed within time under General Clauses Act and is not disallowable under s.36(1)(va); Obiter - discussion of bona fides and consistency with recent Tribunal jurisprudence.

Conclusions: Disallowance deleted; payment on next working day held timely; ground allowed.

Issue 3 - Software expenses: capital v. revenue (deletion of addition Rs. 14,49,002/-)

Legal framework: Distinction between capital and revenue depends on whether expenditure creates or enhances an enduring benefit/asset; section 37(1) allows revenue expenditure wholly and exclusively for business. Nature of item (license term, renewals, recurring costs, creation of separate capital asset) is determinative.

Precedent Treatment: Tribunal followed its own prior bench decision in the assessee's case for an earlier year and cited judicial decisions holding that application software licenses valid for short term/annual renewals that do not create enduring asset are revenue in nature.

Interpretation and reasoning: AO had grouped software items with capital hardware and concluded enduring benefit; however, records showed hardware separately capitalized and the impugned items were software licenses/renewals used in routine manufacturing/quality processes, some with 12-month validity. Revenue did not rebut the CIT(A)'s finding. Tribunal applied consistent judicial view that such licences/renewals are revenue if they do not create enduring asset.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - software licences and recurring validation/data modules used in day-to-day operations and separately capitalised hardware are revenue in nature and allowable under s.37(1) where no enduring asset is created; Obiter - reliance on consistency with earlier years and industry practice.

Conclusions: Addition deleted; ground of Revenue appeal dismissed.

Issue 4 - Consultancy fees for US-FDA approval: capital v. revenue (deletion of addition Rs. 4,18,64,285/-)

Legal framework: Expenditure is capital if it results in acquisition/creation of an enduring asset or confers enduring benefit in the capital field; revenue if incurred in ordinary course for compliance, recurring operations or for obtaining regulatory permissions that do not create a new capital asset.

Precedent Treatment: Tribunal followed coordinate decisions including Tribunal benches and High Court authority that expenses for obtaining product/facility regulatory approvals (including US-FDA) are revenue in nature where they do not result in creation of tangible/intangible capital asset. Principle of consistency applied where identical issue in assessee's own case for earlier year decided similarly.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that consultancy fees related to obtaining approvals for an already operational facility, involved technical/compliance work, and did not create a new source of income or a distinct capital asset. The Revenue failed to produce material showing creation of capital asset or enduring benefit of capital character. Consistency with the assessee's own earlier decisions and lack of distinguishing facts led the Tribunal to hold the expenditure revenue in nature.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - consultancy fees for regulatory approvals that facilitate market access but do not create an enduring capital asset are revenue expenditure allowable under s.37(1); Obiter - reference to policy considerations and prior consistent approaches.

Conclusions: Additions deleted; departmental grounds dismissed.

Issue 5 - Burden of proof and remand for factual verification

Legal framework: Revenue bears burden to prove a deduction is not legitimately claimed; AO must base disallowance on evidence; where facts are disputed and require examination of books/third-party records, remand is appropriate.

Precedent Treatment: Tribunal applied established principles that a piece-meal or presumptive disallowance without evidence is unsustainable and that adjudicatory authorities must verify books and contemporaneous documents.

Interpretation and reasoning: In respect of the slump sale/prorata issue, Tribunal found the AO/CIT(A) had not examined transferee's books or led evidence contradicting the assessee's contemporaneous records; therefore remand to AO for verification was ordered to enable fact-based decision making in accordance with law and natural justice.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where factual dispute exists on whether expenditure was claimed, AO must verify books and related documents before making disallowance; remand is proper remedy. Obiter - procedural observations on natural justice.

Conclusions: Issue remanded to AO for fresh adjudication on factual matrix; other contested heads decided in favour of assessee as above.

---