9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1551 - AT - Income TaxAddition of Brokerage expenses - allowable business expenditure - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - AO has apparently made the disallowance on wrong appreciation of facts on record. The assessee did disclose substantial income from this business activity having sold a number of flats and booked the revenue therefrom in the accounts contrary to the observation of the AO that no income was disclosed during the year under consideration by the assessee. Brokerage has been paid through banking channels and are duly supported with invoices none of which have been disputed by the AO. Books of accounts are duly maintained and audited. With regard to the capitalization of brokerage expenses we find sufficient merits in the contentions of the assessee that the said expenses were incurred as selling cost and therefore could not be made part of work in progress which is also in consonance with the IND AS-2. Thus brokerage expenses cannot be capitalized and have to be allowed in the year in which they are incurred. As ssessee company is engaged on large scale in the business of building construction activity the payment of brokerage is nothing unusual being part of its selling expenses. Accordingly we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the impugned addition in respect of Brokerage expenses. Appeal of the Revenue stands Dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are: (a) Whether the brokerage expenses amounting to Rs. 2,51,11,858/- paid by the assessee to brokers for sale of flats can be allowed as a business expenditure deductible under the Income-tax Act, 1961, or whether such expenses should be disallowed and capitalized as part of inventory (work-in-progress) cost. (b) Whether the assessee has adequately established that the brokerage expenses were wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of business as required under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. (c) Whether the application of the Percentage Completion Method (PCM) of accounting by the assessee, which recognizes revenue only after 25% completion of the project, justifies disallowance of brokerage expenses incurred during the year when no income was allegedly recognized under this method. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Allowability of Brokerage Expenses as Deductible Business Expenditure Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The primary statutory provision governing the allowability of business expenses is section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which permits deduction of any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, unless specifically disallowed. The accounting treatment of such expenses is also guided by Indian Accounting Standards (IND AS), particularly IND AS 2 relating to inventory valuation, and the Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). Judicial precedents relied upon include the Supreme Court decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs DLF Home Developers Ltd [2020], where the Court upheld the allowability of brokerage expenses paid to brokers for booking and sale of properties despite the use of the Percentage Completion Method. The Court observed that brokerage and commission are financial or selling expenses and are allowable in the year incurred. The Tribunal and High Courts have also consistently held that selling and distribution costs, including brokerage, are revenue expenses and should not be capitalized as part of inventory cost. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the brokerage expenses on the basis that the assessee had not recognized any income from the project during the year under the Percentage Completion Method, which required at least 25% completion before revenue recognition. The AO also held that the assessee failed to establish proof of services rendered by brokers. The Tribunal found this factual basis incorrect as the assessee's audited financials showed revenue from operations of Rs. 260.19 crores for the year, contradicting the AO's assertion of nil income. The brokerage expenses were paid through banking channels and supported by invoices, none of which were disputed by the AO. The Tribunal further relied on the accounting principles under IND AS 2, which exclude selling and administrative expenses from inventory valuation, thereby supporting the assessee's accounting treatment of charging brokerage to the Profit & Loss account rather than capitalizing it. The Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions was also cited, which explicitly excludes selling costs from construction and development costs. The Tribunal emphasized that brokerage expenses are selling expenses incurred to facilitate sales and thus are revenue in nature. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's audited financial statements demonstrating substantial revenue recognition; invoices and ledger entries evidencing payment of brokerage; accounting standards and guidance notes excluding selling expenses from inventory valuation; judicial precedents affirming brokerage as allowable revenue expenditure. Application of Law to Facts: Given that brokerage expenses are selling expenses and not related to the physical construction or bringing the inventory to its present location and condition, these expenses cannot be capitalized as part of work-in-progress. Since the assessee incurred these expenses wholly and exclusively for business purposes, they are allowable deductions in the year incurred under section 37. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that the brokerage expenses should be capitalized due to the PCM and absence of income recognition was rejected on factual and legal grounds. The AO's reliance on the PCM to disallow expenses was found to be based on an incorrect factual premise. The Revenue's contention that the assessee failed to prove services rendered was not supported by evidence, given the invoices and banking transactions. Conclusion: The brokerage expenses of Rs. 2,51,11,858/- are allowable as revenue expenditure in the year under consideration and cannot be capitalized as part of inventory. Issue 2: Applicability and Effect of Percentage Completion Method on Allowability of Brokerage Expenses Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Percentage Completion Method (PCM) is an accounting method used in construction and real estate businesses to recognize revenue proportionally as the project progresses, typically after a threshold completion percentage (commonly 25%). However, the method of revenue recognition does not determine the allowability of expenses incurred in earning that revenue. The Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions have clarified that expenses incurred in the course of business, such as brokerage, are allowable even if revenue is not recognized under PCM in the same accounting period. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO's disallowance was premised on the assertion that no income was recognized due to the project being below 25% completion. However, the assessee's financials contradicted this, showing significant revenue. The Tribunal held that the PCM does not preclude the allowance of brokerage expenses, which are selling expenses incurred to facilitate sales and business operations. Key Evidence and Findings: Audited financial statements showing revenue from operations; absence of any legal or accounting principle mandating disallowance of brokerage due to PCM; judicial pronouncements supporting allowability of brokerage irrespective of PCM. Application of Law to Facts: The PCM is an accounting convention for revenue recognition and does not affect the deductibility of expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The brokerage expenses are independent of the stage of project completion and are incurred for sales facilitation. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's reliance on PCM to justify disallowance was rejected as it was based on an erroneous factual premise and misapplication of accounting principles. Conclusion: The Percentage Completion Method does not justify disallowance or capitalization of brokerage expenses; such expenses are deductible in the year incurred. Issue 3: Proof of Services Rendered by Brokers and Compliance with Section 37 Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 37 requires that expenditure claimed as deduction must be incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Proof of services rendered is necessary to establish genuineness and business nexus of expenses. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO questioned the proof of services rendered by brokers. The Tribunal found that the assessee submitted invoices, brokerage ledger, and banking evidence of payments, none of which were disputed. The Tribunal held that the payment of brokerage through banking channels and the invoices suffice as proof of services rendered. Key Evidence and Findings: Copies of broker invoices; brokerage ledger; banking payment evidence; absence of any contrary evidence from AO. Application of Law to Facts: The documentation and payment trail established the genuineness of brokerage expenses and their connection to the business activity of selling flats. Thus, the requirements of section 37 are satisfied. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument of failure to prove services was not supported by any negative evidence or audit findings. Conclusion: The assessee has adequately proved the brokerage expenses were incurred for services rendered and wholly and exclusively for business purposes, entitling them to deduction. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held: "The brokerage expenses are selling expenses and accordingly are revenue in nature and should be debited to profit and loss account and cannot be capitalized." "According to the IND AS 2 (Inventory valuation), administrative and selling expenses which are not related to bringing the inventories (work-in-progress) to their present location and condition are to be excluded from the Inventories being work in progress. Going by the IND AS 2, the brokerage expenses cannot be capitalized, which implies that they will have to be allowed in the year in which they are incurred." "The AO's observation that no income was recognized during the year under the Percentage Completion Method is factually incorrect as the assessee has offered revenue of Rs. 260.19 Crores for the year under consideration." "The payment of brokerage is nothing unusual, being part of its selling expenses and the same are allowable as deduction under section 37." Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
