Transportation expense disallowance and subcontract deduction allocation: fabricated MOU led to denial; subcontractor liable for cess and copy charges

Disallowance of transportation expenses was premised on documentary inconsistency: an earlier MOU purportedly dated before the assessees incorporation undermined the genuineness of claimed transportation of earth, leading to exclusion of Rs.41,48,000 as non-established and the claim being rejected. Addition of sub-contract expenses turned on contractual allocation: clause allocating taxes, cess and deductions to the subcontractor meant the 1% labour cess and copy charge deducted by the paying authority could not be borne by the assessee, resulting in disallowance of those amounts and dismissal of the claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether transportation expense of Rs. 41,48,000 claimed by the assessee is allowable as business expenditure; (ii) Whether sub-contract related deductions of Rs. 5,19,692 (labour cess and copy charges) are allowable to the assessee or are to be borne by the subcontractor under the subcontract agreement.

Issue (i): Allowability of transportation expense of Rs. 41,48,000 incurred prior to execution of subcontract.

Analysis: The assessee claimed the transportation expense relying on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) said to be dated before the subcontract, asserting the expense was incurred for initial site work and borne by the assessee. The existence and timing of the MOU conflicted with the assessed date of formation of the assessee entity, and no reference to such transportation liability appeared in the subsequent subcontract. The factual discrepancy regarding the date of the MOU and absence of corroboration permitted rejection of the claimed amendment to contractual obligations; the genuineness of payment alone, without reliable contractual foundation and credible chronology, did not establish entitlement to deduction.

Conclusion: Transportation expense of Rs. 41,48,000 is disallowed; conclusion adverse to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Allowability of sub-contract deductions of Rs. 5,19,692 representing labour cess and copy charges deducted by the authority while releasing payment.

Analysis: The subcontract contained an express clause allocating all statutory taxes, cess and similar deductions applicable to the contract to the subcontractor. The deductions in question were made by the contracting authority and therefore fell within the scope of that express contractual allocation. In view of the clear contractual provision, the expenditure could not be treated as allowable to the assessee.

Conclusion: Sub-contract related deductions of Rs. 5,19,692 are disallowed to the assessee; conclusion adverse to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both grounds raised by the assessee are rejected and the appeal is dismissed, upholding the additions made in assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee seeks deduction for expenditure related to contract performance, entitlement depends on credible evidence of contractual liability and chronology; an express contractual clause allocating statutory deductions to the subcontractor is determinative and precludes deduction by the assessee absent reliable evidence of a valid prior binding agreement imposing the liability on the assessee.

---