ICICI VENTURE FUNDS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 321/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2016AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that provisions made based on claims and services rendered within the relevant year are allowable, even if payment is postponed or some portion is reversed later. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Bharath Earth Movers v. CIT.

What were the facts?

The assessee disallowed miscellaneous expenditure of Rs. 4,83,600/-, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) on the grounds that the provisions were contingent and lacked documentary evidence of crystallization of liability. The assessee argued that provisions were made based on claims submitted and services rendered within the relevant year.

What were the issues?

Whether miscellaneous expenditure in the nature of provisions, where services were rendered in the relevant year but payment was postponed, is allowable as a business expenditure.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)
Hearing: 27.04.2016Pronounced: 20.05.2016

Per Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal was recalled by this Tribunal in M.P. No.98/Bang/2015 by order dated 06.11.2015 on account of non-adjudication of ground No.6 raised in the original memo of appeal. Ground No.6 raised in the original memo of appeal reads as under:-

“6. The learned Assessing Officer had erred in disallowing the miscellaneous expenditure incurred to the extent of Rs.4,83,600/- and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. On proper appreciation of facts and evidence available, the expenditure incurred exclusively for business purpose and same is to be allowed as such and disallowance as done/confirmed is to be deleted.”

2.

Ground No.6 challenges the confirmation of disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure of Rs.4,83,600 by the CIT(Appeals). The Assessing Officer disallowed the above expenditure on the ground that the provisions made are contingent in nature. The details of expenditure are as under:-

Sl. Date Ledger Description Amount No. 1. 09.06.2009 Miscellaneous Expenses incurred by 8,600-00 Anandjit Sunder Raj towards gift for A Ranga Raju’s daughter marriage, Nagarjuna Constructions dated 01.06.2009 2. 31.03.2010 Miscellaneous Provision accounted for the 75,000-00 month March 2010 (Net of TDS) 3. 31.03.2010 Miscellaneous Provision accounted for the 1,00,000-00 month March 2010 (Net of TDS) 4. 01.06.2009 Professional Visiting property at 50,000-00 charges Mumbai for Vaastu inspection. Payment made to N.S. Murthy towards Vaastu inspection 5. 31.03.2010 Travel Journal Monthly closure 1,50,000-00 6. 31.03.2010 Miscellaneous Provision for gifts for year 1,00,000-00 ending 31.03.2010 TOTAL 4,83,600-00

3.

The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the disallowance of provisions holding that the appellant had failed to establish crystallization of liability during the previous relevant to assessment year under consideration by producing documentary evidence in respect of the above provisions. The CIT(A) further held that substantial amount of provisions was reversed in the subsequent year indicating that there was no proper basis for making such provisions.

4.

Being aggrieved, the issue was agitated before this Tribunal vide ground No.6.

5.

The ld. AR submitted that the provisions were made based on the claims submitted to the appellant company. Therefore, the liability has crystallized during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration and in this connection he relied on the following decisions:-

(1) Bharath Earth Movers v. CIT, 254 ITR 428 (SC) (2) CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 66 (P&H) (3) Escorts Mahle Ltd. v. DCIT, 309 ITR (AT) 181 (Del)

6.

On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From a perusal of the details submitted, it is clear that provisions are made based on the claim submitted by the respective parties. It is also an undisputed fact that the services were rendered by the respective parties during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. The mere fact that the payment has been postponed cannot come in the way of allowability of the expenditure, even though some portion of the provision has been reversed in the subsequent assessment year. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharath Earth Movers v. CIT, 254 ITR 428 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore, we allow this ground of appeal.

Pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of May, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →