IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
And
SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 3527/DEL/2009
(Assessment Year: 2003-04)
| DCIT | Vs | Abdur Pvt. Ltd. |
| Circle-1(1) New Delhi. (APPELLANT) |
8/5, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. (RESPONDENT) |
Assessee by :Shri Gagan Sood, DR
Revenue by :Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate &
Shri Suresh Anandaramen , CA
ORDER
PER I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The revenue has questioned first appellate order on the following
1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 3,70,00,000/- claimed by the assessee on the basis of contractual obligation relates entirely to the assessment year under consideration i.e. Asstt. Year 2003-04 ignoring that the contract also required that the same was to be calculated on annual basis.
2) Consequently, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting entirely the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of expenditure of Rs.3,70,00,000/- claimed by the assessee.
2
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material made available on record and the decisions relied upon.
3. The relevant facts are that the assessee in the business of advertising through TV, Radio, Satellite channels and newspaper publicity etc. had claimed loss of Rs. 3,70,00,000/- which was disallowed by the AO on the basis that the expenditure was incurred on a new line of business. The Ld. CIT(A) has however accepted the claimed loss and has deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,70,00,000/-
4. In support of the ground the Ld. DR has basically placed reliance on the assessment order. The Ld. DR referred contents of para No. 2-3 of the assessment order at page No. 2 & 3 of the order. He submitted that as per the assessee Dabur Finance selected two companies and made various payments on behalf of the assessee company. He submitted that the assessee contended that the asessess itself wanted to venture into broadcasting business and Dabur Finance was merely financing the assessee. This statement of the assessee is totally in contradiction to the facts stated in the agreement which shows that the assessee itself is not sure as to what was the arrangement and who indeed intended to start the broadcasting business. He submitted that the terms and conditions of the agreement between assessee and Dabur Finance are not natural that the assessee, a professional
3
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
company has to bear loss. He submitted further that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the loss was for several years which was enduring in nature, hence it was capital loss. Nothing on record is there that due to advice of Dabur Finance the assesee had earned any profit .The first appellate authority has not held that liability arises in this year.
5. The Ld AR on the other hand tried to justify the first appellate order on the issue. He submitted that the assesee is in broadcasting business and its 95% of source of income is from Dabur India . M/s Vertex Broadcasting Co. was winner of contract of various places for broadcasting. The Dabur Finance made investment and entered into a contract with the asssessee in the broadcasting business. The assesee advised to Dabur Finance to enter into an agreement to make investment. In support the Ld. AR referred page No. 21 to 25 of the paper book i.e. copy of agreement dated 27.10.1999. He also referred page Nos. 33,36,42, 48 and 59 of the paper book, he submitted further the grievance of the revenue in the present appeal is restricted to the issue as to in which year loss can be allowed. He submitted that investment was made by Dabur Finance and not by the assesee. The Ld. AR submitted that commercial expediency is the businessman’s decision to ensure profits on the investment made by Dabur Finance at the advice of the asssesee. The assesee agreed to ensure profit to Dabur by its agreement to bear the loss. In Dabur Finance it was capital
4
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
investment in the shares of Vertex Broadcasting Co. made at the advice of the assesee. He placed reliance on the following decisions :-
1) Eastern Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 20 ITR 1 (SC)
2) CIT vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. 62 ITR 638 (SC)
3) CIT v. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. 133 ITR 756 (SC)
4) Catalysts & Chemicals India Ltd. vs. CIT 166 ITR 769 (Ker)
5) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. 223 ITR 112 (Kar)
6) CIT vs. Pure Beverages Ltd. 209 ITR131 (Guj)
7) Addl. CIT v. Symonds Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 108 ITR 947 (All)
8) Coca Cola India Ltd. vs. JCIT 102 ITD 134 (Pune Tribunal)
9) ITC Ltd. v. JCIT (2005) 4 SOT 320 (Kolkata Tribunal)
10) Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. CIT 78 Taxman 455 (Cal)
11) CIT vs. Malyalam Plantations Ltd. 53 IR 140
12) CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. 54 ITR 377
13) CIT vs. Microsoft Corporation of India Ltd. 176 Taxman 397
14) CIT vs. Royal Calcuta Turf Club 41 ITR 414
6. In the rejoinder Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has also made double claim which is apparent from para No. 2 – 5 of the assessment order from the reading.
5
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
7. On having gone through the orders of the authorities below we find that the assesee in the business of advertisement through various media like TV, Radio Sattelite, newspaper publicity etc. had claimed revenue loss amouting to Rs. 3,70,00,000/-. It was contended that the loss has been incurred in the course of carrying on advertising business hence it is eligible for deduction while computing the profit and gains of the business. It was submitted that the assessee had entered into an agreement dated 27.12.99 with Dabur Finance Ltd. (Dabur Finance) a wholly owned subsidiary of Dabur India Ltd. The AO noted from the agreement dated 27.12.99 that the Dabur Finance is engaged in the business of Finance and is operating as a non banking finance company and is desirous of investing some of its surplus funds. As per the agreement the assessee had identified F&M broadcasting business as an upcoming business opportunity. As per the agreement, Dabur Finance had approached the assessee for providing professional acumen for identifying FB Broadcasting Companies and the assessee agreed to provide professional advice on the mode , time and extent of investment and Dabur Finance agreed to take and act on such professional advice . The remuneration to the assessee for such device was in the form of share of profit from this venture. As per the agreement, the Dabur Finance shall have the absolute discretion to accept in whole or in past or to reject till readily to investment recommended by the assesee. It was further agreed that in case Dabur Finance incurred in loss on its
6
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
investment , then entire loss will be exclusively borne by the assessee. The agreement further states that the assessee has agreed to underwrite the loss if any on investment made by Dabur Finance.
8. Subsequent to the above said agreement Dabur Finance selected two companies as per assessee’s recommendation namely Vertex Broadcasting Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. FM JV Holdings (P) Ltd. and made investment in these two companies. According to the assessee these two companies were having expertise in FM business and deposited auction money / licence fee for various FM channels which was forfeited subsequently. Since Dabur Finance could not recover these amounts from these above said two companies, the assessee paid off Rs. 3.7 crores to Dabur Finance to meet its loss. We find that while examining the claimed loss the AO framed following four questions / queries :-
i) Whether the assessee company had any liability to incur and claim such loss
ii) Whether such loss can be claimed in the relevant asstt. Year or not
iii) Whether such loss is related to new line of business and hence can be categorised as pre operative expenses, and
iv) Whether such loss is a capital loss or a revenue loss.
7
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
9. Being not satisfied with the answer furnished by the assesee to the above queries, the AO has rejected the claimed loss. The Ld. CIT(A) has however accepted the claimed loss. The reply of the assesee to the above cited queries raised by the AO so far as query No. (i) is concerned remained that as per the agreement between the assessee and the Dabur Finance the assesee was acting in the capacity of the consultant for Dabur Finance so that Dabur Finance can start off a new venture. The AO did not agree with this reply of the assesee on the basis that the new venture of FM broadcasting was undertaken by Dabur Finance and not by the assesee; he also noted submission in the letter dated 6.12.2005 from the assesee as per which Dabur Finance Ltd. to the above companies made various payments on behalf of the assesee. The AO stated that vide this letter the assessee is contending that it itself wanted to venture into broadcasting business and Dabur Finacne was merely financing the assessee whereas as per agreement new venture of FM Broadcasting was undertaken by Dabur Finance and not by assessee. Thus the AO came to the conclusion that assessee itself was not sure as to what the arrangement was and who intended to start the broadcasting business. Regarding the second query the AO noted that the expenses under consideration was incurred in the following financial years :-
8
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
| FY | Amount in Rs. |
| 2000-01 | 1,08,00,000/- |
| 2001-02 | 1,08,00,000/- |
| 2002-03 | 20,50,000/- |
10. According to the AO if for a moment it is presumed that the expenses were allowable then these should have been claimed in the year in which the expenses were incurred.
11. Regarding query No.(iii) the observation of the AO remained that venturing into radio FM business can by no stretch of means be called an expansion of the advertising business. As per him assessee is in the business of selling of advertisement space in various advertisement medias such as TV, Radio and newspaper and in lieu thereof earns commission. The expansion of business was in fact opening up of a radio channel (FMChannel) for which a licence is required from the Government. According to him, the very fact that license is required for opening of a radio channel proves that the expansion of business claimed is nothing but setting up of new line of business as existing business does not require license.
12. On the last query the AO observed that entire amount under question have been paid by Dabur Finance to FMJV Holdings PVt. LTd. . The AO observed further from the agreement that the payment by Dabur Finance to the above two mentioned companies, was in the form of
9
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
investment by Dabur Fiance in these two companies. The money has been advanced by Dabur Finance to Vertex Broadcasting CO. Pvt. Ltd. as share application money and the same has been shown under the head ‘investment by Dabur Finance’. He observed that the amount spent for acquiring share holding in another company under the given circumstances cannot be said to be revenue expenditure. Therefore any loss undertaken by Dabur Finance in the form of diminution of investment can only be termed as capital loss and not a revenue loss. The AO noted further that assessee was also holding shares worth Rs. 80 lacs in Vertex Broadcasting Co. Pvt. Ltd. for the relevant asstt. year. From the copies of the correspondence made / received by Vertex with Ministry of Information and Broadcasting show that these were made in the name of Vertex only. Nowhere the name of assesse company is appearing nor is there agreement between Vertex and Dabur or the assesee to substantiate the assesee’s view point. The AO observed further that the assessee has made an investment in Vertex Broadcastign Co. Ltd. through Dabur Finance Ltd. and claimed the diminution of investment as a revenue loss. He observed further that the claim of the assessee of the losses after two years further strengthens the theory that the expenses when they were incurred in the form of investment were considered as a capital expenditure and its treatment as a revenue expenditure is merely an after thought. He also mentioned that in the agreement provided that the term profit (to be
10
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
shared between the asesee and Dabur) would include both dividend received as well as profit on sale of shares. This definition as per the AO substantiate that the amount under consideration was indeed a capital expenditure in the nature of investment in shares. The AO accordingly held that the whole transaction involving these three companies appears to be a colourable device to create a revenue loss in the hands of the asseee and claim it as a normal business loss which otherwise cannot be allowed under the Act as a revenue loss.
13. The contention of the assesee before the authorities below and also reiterated by the Ld. AR before the Tribunal, has been reproduced at page Nos. 7 to 10 of the first appellate order.
14. We find that two issues erose in the present appeal. As to whether the assessee company had any liability to claim the loss in question and if it is answered in affirmative then what was the nature of the losses ; and secondly what would be the assessment year to which the claimed loss pertains to? To decide the first issue in our view the agreement between Dabur Finance and the assesee is the document which is to be examined. The AO has disbelieved the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement on the basis that there is contribution between agreement and the contents of the letter dated 6.12.2005 filed by the assessee. There is no dispute on the existence and
11
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
genuineness of the agreement entered into by the assessee with Dabur Finance. As per the revenue the terms and conditions of this agreement are not natural and it is nothing but a colourable device to avoid payment of tax. There is also no dispute that to arrive at a the very nature of the agreement or to examine contradiction between the agreement and written submission / letter dated 6.12.2005, books of accounts of the parties are to be seen as to how the related entries have been made and treated in their books of accounts. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) has not been disputed that there is no entry in the books of accounts of the assesee and the AO himself made this observation that money has been advanced by Dabur Finance Ltd. to Vertex Broadcasting Co. Pvt. Ltd. as share application and same has been shown under the head “investment” by Dabur Finance Ltd. The AO has also observed that copies of correspondence made / received by Vertex with Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Co. Ltd. were made in the name of Vertex only and nowhere the name of the assessee company is appearing. The assessee has claimed the loss arising out of a contractual liability. The assessee is not claiming the payment made by Dabur Finance to the selected two companies as its expenditure. While deciding the issue raised we will have to keep this material fact of the issue in our mind. Under these background when we examine the terms and conditions of the agreement we find that investment by Dabur Finance was made on the advice of the assessee with this condition that in case of loss
12
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
the assessee will make good of it to the Dabur Finance . We find that the AO ignoring this material facts i.e. terms and conditions of the agreement, has come to the conclusion that it was not a liability of the assessee company on misplaced facts. While making observation based on the contention of the letter dated 6.12.2005 the AO has submitted that payment to the above said two selected companies were made on behalf of the assessee company by Dabur Finance but factually it is not correct as there is no such entry in the books of accounts of the assesee company. If Dabur Finance was making payment on behalf of the assessee company then there should have been a general entry making the Dabur Finance as creditor. There is no such entry in the books of accounts of the assesee. Thus the reliance by the AO on the letter dated 6.12.2005 to arrive at the conclusion that it is not the liability of the assesee company to bear the loss is not correct. The first part of the first issue is thus answered in favour of 15. Now the question is as to whether the expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. For deciding this issue we have to verify as to whether such loss is related to new business of the assessee and hence can be categorized as pre operative expenses. On perusal of the assessment order we find that the AO has examined the claimed loss as capital loss in the hands of Dabur Finance but the issue on hand is the nature of expenditure in the hands of the assessee. We thus agree with the 13 ITA No. 3527/Del/2009 finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard that it is immaterial whether Dabur Finance has shown in its balance sheet the payment made to Vertex as investment or in any other name as the entry made in the books of Dabur Finance has no relevance to decide as to whether the claim of loss as expenditure in the hands of assesee is capital or revenue in nature. As per the agreement between assesee and Dabur Finacne the assessee is liable to make good of losses incurred by Dabur Finance irrespective whether it is capital or revenue . We thus fully concur with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the claim of this expenditure in the hands of the assessee is revenue in nature only. The copies of correspondence made / received by Vertex with Ministry of Information and Broadcasting were made in the name of Vertex only and nowhere the name of the assessee was appearing. Undisputedly no agreement was entered into between Vertex Broadcasting Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee, whereas there is no dispute that the assessee and Dabur Finance on 27.12.1999 had entered into an agreement. As per this agreement the Dabur Finance had approached the assessee for providing professional acumen of the assessee for identifying the FM Broadcasting Company for the purpose of business improvement and for evaluating them from the point of view furthering its business in advertising areas in which it was engaged. As per this agreement the assessee agreed to provide professional advice for identifying the FB Broadcasting Companies , projected profitability etc. and Dabur Finance has
14
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
agreed to take and act on such professional advise for making investment subject to the terms and conditions stipulated herein. The relevant extract of the agreement has been reproduced herein above for ready reference :-
1. Adbur shall identify, provide details of the FM Broadcasting Companies in which in its opinion it may be profitable to invest money. Adbur shall advise Dabur regarding mode, timing and extent of investment in such companies.
2. Adbur shall forward its advise to Dabur for the purposes of investment, backed by data based evaluation, credentials of the company and a brief note regarding soundness of the investment.
3. The parties hereby agree that Dabur shall have the absolute discretion to accept, in whole or in part or to reject outright the investment recommended by Adbur without incurring any liability to Adbur in that regard.
4. In consideration of Adbur providing the professional services referred to herein above, Dabur has agreed as under: a) The second party hereby Instructs Dabur to enter FM Broadcasting business based on the recommendation of Adbur, Dabur shall be entitled to the first 10% profits made on the venture. b) It is further agreed that any profit made over and above 10% referred in 4 (a) above shall be shared. equally between Dabur and Adbur. Adbur shall be entitled to receive the said share as commission / consideration for rendering the services envisaged in this agreement and such profit shall be calculated on annual basis The term profit shall include both any dividend received as well as profit on sale of shares as and when such sale takes place. It is further agreed between the parties that Dabur can liquidate its investment at any time after expiry of 6 months from the date of investment by way of sale of shares which shall be affected after obtaining prior consent of Adbur. It is further agreed that in case Dabur incurred any loss on sale of its investment then the entire loss will be exclusively borne by Adbur in consideration of Dabur having agreed to give share in the profit on investment to Adbur. For clarity of doubt it is hereby expressly understood that Adbur has
15
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
agreed to underwrite the loss, if any on the investment made by 16. Thus it is an undisputed fact that the agreement was between Dabur Finance and the assesee as per which the assessee was having only advisory role to suggest Dabur Finance to make investment in Vertex Broadcasting Co. Pvt. Ltd. As per agreement it was final decision of Dabur Finance whether to avoid the advice of assesee or not. There was no question of any agreement between the assesee and Vertex Broadcasting Co. Pvt. Ltd. It is not a case of loss incurred by the assessee due to investment in the above companies i.e. Vertex and others but assessee represents the payment made by Dabur Finance on the advice of the assessee as per the agreement of the assessee with them on account of Dabur Finance having suffered a loss and the assessee was bound to make good of it to the Dabur Finance. In other words the assessee was duty bound to pay this loss as per agreement. The payment was made on account of commercial expediency for the purpose of business. This view is supported by the chronology of the events vide letter dated 1.2.200 written by the Director of the assesee to Dabur Finance Ltd. advising to make investment as follow up to the agreement dated 27.12.99. The relevant extract of this letter has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page No. 15 and 16 of the first appellate order. Vide this letter based on the preliminary evaluation the assessee has informed Dabur Finance Ltd. about shortlisting
16
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
of Vertex Broadcasting Co. Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of investment. On the basis of their business plans, projected profitability profile of management etc. the assessee opined that investment in the FM Radio venture of a sound mode. The assessee informed further that vertex has tendered for more than 30 FM Radio channels and is one of the front runners in the process. It was informed that Vertex is also likely to tie up with some of the reputed players in the FM trade. The assesee narrating all the material aspect head strongly recommended that Dabur Finance should invest an amount upto Rs. 5 crores in Vertex by equity /preference capital convertible into equity. In turn Dabur Finance vide letter dated 29.6.2002 wrote to the assessee stating the details of investment made by it in FB Broadcasting Venture reproduced as under :-
a) In 11,87,500/- zero % compulsory Convertible 80,17,500/- Preference shares including share transfer stamps.
b) Share Application Money 3,18,50,000/-
c) Share application Money in FMJV 54,00,000/-
_____________
4,52,67,500/-
17. Vide this letter dated 29.6.2002 the assesee was asked by Dabur Fianance Limited to pay a sum of Rs. 4,52,67,500/- as per the terms of agreement dated 27.12.1999 entered between Dabur Finance and assesee since Vertex Broadcasting Co. Pvt. Ltd. was not pursuing its Radio Business activities and was opting out of its FM Radio venture and they have suffered
17
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
heavy loss as paid money/ license fee has been forfeited due to which the investment made were not yielding any profits/dividends. 18. After this, reminder letter dated 20.8.2002 was also written by Dabur Finance to the assessee for making payment of the claimed amount. The assessee was trying to negotiate vide letter dated 20.9.2002, 27.12.2002 etc. The submission of the assesee remained that finally the amount was settled for Rs. 3.70 crores and thus amount has been claimed by the assesssee in its profit and loss account for the year under consideration as allowable u/s 37 of the Act. In view of these background we do not find reason to agree with the observation of the AO that the claimed loss was a colourable device to avoid payment of tax. Of course we have to give preference to the written agreement entered into between the parties for consideration of the issue regarding the genuineness of the claimed loss. The correspondence in furtherance to the said agreement also supports the cases of the assessee. It is also pertinent to mention over here that on the advice of the assessee (as per the agreement) the Dabur Finance had made investment in FMJV Holdings Pvt. Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 45267500/- , out of which investment in Vertex was made at Rs. 3,98,57,000/- and in FMJV Holdings Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 54,00,000/-. It also indicates that Dabur Finance was not in the FM business directly but through its investment in Vertex and FMJV Holding Pvt. Ltd. As per the balance sheet of Vertex as on 31.3.2002 total share capital of Vertex was of
18
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
Rs. 2,99,36,200/- and the net was of Rs. 92,37,631/- the Vertex has suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 4,04,06,680/-. Out of total share capital of
Rs. 49936200/- the share of the assesee was of Rs. 45267500/-. Thus the value of share of the assessee was reduced very substantially. The share of assessee in net asset of Vertex was only Rs. 83,91,714/-. The earnest money deposit and security deposit with Prasar Bharti was also taken as an asset though it was highly disputed and finally it was also forfeited on 29.2.2002 Punjab National Bank also intimated to Vertex that an amount of Rs. 100 lacs along with interest @ 15.5% w.e.f. 31.8.2002 was to be pad to them as the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting have encashed the pay order on 28.9.2002 through clearing. Thus it is clear that Vertex had suffered loss heavily and as a result Dabur Finance has also lost its investment. It has been also pointed out by the Ld. AR before the Tribunal that the decision of Vertex which was made before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (vide petition No. 252/c of 2009) for deduction of share capital as recommended by the general meeting of the Company held on 31.1.2005 was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court vide its judgment dated 29.7.2010 through which it was proposed the deduction of share capital from Rs. 6,31,36,200/- to Rs. 4,86,200/-. Thus the loss of Vertex was quantified and acknowledged and resulted into loss of investment of Dabur Finance as
19
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
19. The contention of the revenue remained that loss was finally crystilised in the year 2005 and not in the year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with this issue in par No. 2.10.1 at page 26-27 of the first appellate order. He agreed with the contention of the AO that in strict sense loss to Dabur Finance was not crystalised in previous year relevant to asstt. year 2003-0-4 but have found strength in assessee’s contention that as far as assessee was concerned it was duty bound to pay Dabur Dinance the claim for meeting the losses incurred by it. He has noted that the assessee could have gone for litigation against such claim by Dabur Finacne to be paid in the previous year but that might have cost the ssessee’s entire business as it was heavily dependent upon Dabur Group for its business thus instead of going for litigation (only for the limited extent as the claim of Dabur Finance may be said as little pre mature). It is settled for payment of Rs. 3.70 crores as against the claim of Rs. 4.52 crores. He has observed further that by not litigating the assessee did not lose anything as finally loss has been crystalilsed in the year 2005 even in the strictest sense and then assesee would have to pay this claim in that year. But by not going to the litigation though on one hand it has to pay the amount a little early but on the other hand it has maintained its major source of income which was coming only from Dabur Group and also Rs. 82 lacs as against claim of Rs. 4.52 crores it has paid only Rs. 3.70 csorers. The Ld. CIT(A) has accordingly come to the conclusion that assesee had made payment on the principle of
20
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
commercial expediency and therefore payment made by it to Dabur Finance is allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) during the year. In this regard he has placed reliance on the decision of following cases :-
1. CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. 133 ITR 756 (SC)
2. CIT vs. Microsoft Corporation of India (P) Ltd. 176 Taxman 395 (Delhi)
20.
We find that in the case of Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. (supra) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court almost similar were facts. In that case the assesee company was partner in managing agency firm. Money was advanced by Managing Company to 3rd party on recommendation of a partner of firm. Third party claimed the assesee agreeing to make the good part of loss to managing company. It was held that the amount paid by assesee is revenue expenditure. The managing agency firm did not claim amount in its return. It was held that the managing agency agreement with the company was a profitable source of income. The assessee incurred an expenditure in question to abide any adverse effect to protect the managing agency an income earning apparatus and for retaining it with the reconstituted firm in which the interest of the assessee was the same as before. Therefore the expenditure was laid out on purely business considerations and wholly for the purpose of assessee’s business. Under these circumstances we do not find infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the expenditure of Rs.
21
ITA No. 3527/Del/2009
3,70,00,00/- claimed by the asssesee on the basis of contractual application relates entirely to the asstt. year under consideration i.e. asst. year 2003-04 and he was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO. The same is upheld. Grounds involving the issue are accordingly rejected. We thus find that the claimed loss in the hands of the assessee was revenue in nature.
21. From the above discussion on the chronology of the events it is also clear that the claimed loss has been crystalised in a figure at Rs. 3,70,000/- during the year under onsideration only then the last question (as to whether the claimed loss pertain to the Asstt. year under consideration) can be safely answered in affirmative.
22 In the result appeal is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 26th .May 2014. sd/- sd/- (T.S. KAPOOR) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date 26th .May, 2014 Copy of order forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
5. DR By Order
Asstt. Registrar, ITAT
DISCLAIMER : Access and Circulation of this order is subject to the condition that Taxnewsviews Team is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions. For original order visit the respective website.