THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/820/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01051259201827 March 2023Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court considered the rival contentions and the records. It noted that Section 35D of the Income Tax Act provides for amortization of certain preliminary expenses incurred for the extension of a business. While the Revenue opposed the assessee's plea for remand, the Court was of the considered view that statutory relief should not be defeated on technical grounds. However, it also acknowledged that the Revenue must be given an opportunity to contest the assessee's claim. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to remand the matter to the Assessing Authority to examine the assessee's plea with regard to Section 35D of the IT Act. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Authority for fresh assessment. The questions of law were not answered as the matter was remanded. All contentions of both parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax) appealed against an order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.1557/Bang/2016 for Assessment Year 2011-2012. The appeal was admitted to consider seven questions of law. The Revenue sought to argue only questions No. 5 and 7, having conceded questions No. 1 and 4 in a related appeal. The dispute concerns the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 3.31 Crores paid to M/s. Allegro Corporate Finance Advisors Pvt. Ltd. for raising equity funds of approximately Rs. 100 Crores. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] treated this expenditure as capital in nature, while the ITAT reversed this finding and granted relief to the assessee, M/s. Manipal Health Enterprises Pvt Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 100 Crores, holding it as revenue expenditure, despite the AO holding it as capital expenditure due to the assessee's failure to provide a break-up and substantiate claims related to bonus shares/debentures? (Question No. 5) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the disallowance of legal and professional charges, holding them as capital expenditure, despite the AO treating them as revenue expenditure related to raising fresh equity and feasibility studies for expansion, thereby providing enduring benefit? (Question No. 7) Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its senior advocate, argued that the expenditure should be allowed as a deduction under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for amortization of expenditure in connection with the extension of an undertaking. The assessee contended that neither the AO, CIT(A), nor the ITAT had considered this aspect. Therefore, the assessee prayed for the matter to be remanded to the AO for examination of eligibility for amortization under Section 35D. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its standing counsel, initially relied on the decision in Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax to argue that the expenditure was capital in nature. Subsequently, the Revenue opposed the assessee's submission for remand, arguing that this contention was not raised by the assessee throughout the proceedings and was only being sought as a respondent in the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

ITA No. 820 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 820 OF 2018 BETWEEN :

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE-5, PRESENT ADDRESS CIRCLE-2(3)(1) 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. E.I. SANMATHI, STANDING COUNSEL)

AND :

M/S. MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PVT LTD NO.14, MANIPAL TOWERS OLD AIRPORT ROAD BENGALURU-560 008 PAN:AAGCM 5933R …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. R.V. EASWAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. TATA KRISHNA AND SHRI. S. SHARATH, ADVOCATES) . . . .

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ITA No. 820 of 2018

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.06.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.1557/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ETC.

THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the Revenue directed against the order dated 27.06.2018 in ITA No.1557/Bang/2016 passed by the ITAT1 has been admitted to consider seven questions of law.

2.

Heard Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri. R.V. Easwar, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee.

3.

Shri. Sanmathi submitted that questions No. 1 and 4 have been considered in ITA No.817/2018. He seeks leave to address arguments on only questions No.5 and 7 and seeks leave to argue remaining questions in appropriate cases.

4.

Shri. R.V. Easwar, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee has no objection.

1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

- 3 -

ITA No. 820 of 2018

5.

Questions No.5 and 7 read as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of expenditure for inflow of equity to the extent of Rs.100 Crores by holding that the same is in the nature of Revenue expenditure even though the assessing authority rightly held it as capital expenditure considering that the assessee had failed to provide break-up of expenditure and the assessee had failed to substantiate its claims that it pertains to issue of bonus share/debentures?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of legal and professional charges by holding that the same is in the nature of capital expenditure even though the assessing authority rightly treated the same as revenue expenditure since the same was related to raising of fresh equity and to study feasibility of expansion and, as such, it gave enduring benefit to the assessee?

6.

Both questions of law are interlinked. In substance, the assessee has made payment of Rs.3.31 Crores to M/s. Allegro Corporate Finance Advisors Pvt. Ltd., for raising equity funds of approximately 100 Crores from the interested investors. Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure holding the same as a capital expenditure. The CIT(A)2 has upheld AO’s order. The ITAT reversed the said finding and granted relief to the assessee. Hence, this appeal.

2 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

- 4 -

ITA No. 820 of 2018

7.

Shri. Sanmathi, placing reliance on Brooke Bond India Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax3 submitted that the expenditure is capital in nature.

8.

Shri. Easwar, learned Senior Advocate adverting to Section 35D of the Income Tax Act4, 1961 submitted that assessee must be allowed deduction of an amount equal to one-tenth of such expenditure for each of ten successive previous years where the assessee makes expenditure in connection with extension of undertaking. He submitted that the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have not adverted to this aspect. Accordingly, he prayed to remand the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to examine whether assessee would be entitled for amortization of expenses under Section 35D of the IT Act. :

9.

Shri. Sanmathi, argued opposing the said submission on the ground that assessee has not urged this

3 (1997)91 TAXMAN 26 (SC) 4 For short ‘IT Act’

- 5 -

ITA No. 820 of 2018

contention throughout. It is only in this appeal, that too as a respondent, assessee is seeking an order of remand.

10.

We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.

11.

As per Section 35D of the IT Act, where an assessee incurs any expenditure for extension of his business, he shall be entitled for amortization with certain preliminary expenses. Though Shri. Sanmathi opposed the contention urged by the learned Senior Advocate for the assessee, in our considered view, if the tax payer is entitled for any statutory relief, the same shall not be defeated on technical grounds. However, the Revenue must be given an opportunity to contest assessee’s claim.

12.

In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Authority to examine assessee’s plea with regard to Section 35D of the IT Act.

- 6 -

ITA No. 820 of 2018

13.

Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Appeal is allowed. (b) The matter is remitted to the Assessing Authority for fresh assessment. (c) Since the matter has been remanded, questions of law have not been answered. (d) All contentions of both parties are kept open.

No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

SPS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 0

More judgments on Section 35D

All 595 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →