Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 152 - AT - Income TaxNature of expenses - video shooting expenses claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure in the computation of income but capitalized into the books of accounts and shown in the balance sheet - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has incurred the video shooting expenditure of various tourist locations for the business purposes. Undoubtedly, the assessee has capitalized the same in its books of account following the AS-26 on intangible assets. DRP following the decision of PROCTOR & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD. [2015 (3) TMI 272 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the expenditure is allowable to the assessee. This shows that in the books of account the expenditure have been wrongly capitalized by the assessee. Though we fully agree with the learned assessing officer that the guiding principles classifying the expenditure as revenue on as a capital expenditure cannot be different for the books of account of the assessee and to claim as deduction in the income tax return. The video shooting expenditure does not give any enduring benefit to the assessee. Therefore, the above expenditure may be wrongly capitalized in the books of account. However for the income tax purposes, the learned dispute resolution panel after considering the facts of the case held that the same is revenue expenditure. The learned departmental representative could not show that how the video shooting expenditure with respect to the two central business of the assessee can be considered as capital expenditure - Decided against revenue. Expenditure incurred on issue of non-convertible debenture - HELD THAT:- DRP has categorically held that expenditures incurred on issue of non-convertible debentures are similar to the expenditure incurred as interest on non-convertible debentures. DRP has further restricted disallowances of such expenditure to the extent of proportionate amount invested in fixed assets which have not been put to use during the year. AO could not show any infirmity in the order of DRP. Further, apparently the accounting treatment given by the assessee by reducing share premium account by expenditure incurred for issue of non-convertible debenture is incorrect. Accordingly, we dismiss ground of the appeal of AO.
|