Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Haryana State Roads & Bridges Development Corp. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Panchkula Circle,

Guarantee Fee paid - revenue or capital expenditure - Held that:- It is not in dispute that assessee has taken loans from HUDCO for maintaining and improvement of State Highways and other District roads in State of Haryana and same loan was capitalized. The Haryana Government has given guarantee for State Corporation of HUDCO against grant of loan. For this activity of giving guarantee, the Haryana State Government has taken the Guarantee Fees. The counsel for assessee was directed to explain an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arantee fees to the State Government by its own corporation. - When assessee was asked to justify as to for what purposes, the guarantee fee was paid to the State Government, assessee was not able to explain anything in this regard. It is well settled law that when assessee claimed deduction on account of business expenditure, burden would be upon assessee to prove that the said expenditure was not in the nature of capital expenditure and has been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ground of appeal of the assessee. The assessee specifically pleaded before authorities below that since amount is actually paid, therefore, assessee is not required to deduct TDS on the same amount. No other submissions were raised before authorities below. The issue of ‘paid’ and ‘payable’ has already been decided against the assessee by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PMS Diesels (2015 (5) TMI 617 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ). Now, the ld. counsel for the assessee has com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

documents before the authorities below which have been now filed at pages 11 to 15 of the Paper Book, genuineness of same are in doubt. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 404/CHD/2014 - Dated:- 16-10-2015 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Shri Harry Rikhy Respondent by: Shri S.K.Mittal O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Panchkula, dated 03.02.2014 for assessment year .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lain the nature of this expenditure. The assessee replied that this amount was paid to the State of Haryana for giving guarantee against loan taken from HUDCO by the assessee corporation. The total guarantee against fees was ₹ 1121.56 lacs which was to be amortized in the period of loan taken in various schemes. The Assessing Officer concluded that assessee had raised loan from HUDCO for its projects on which guarantee fee of ₹ 96,91,000/- was claimed. Since the amount of loan was ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The Haryana Government gives guarantee against loan taken from HUDCO by the assessee. The guarantee fees paid to the State Government was claimed as revenue expenditure. The guarantee fees paid is expenditure and is not refundable, therefore, it was revenue expenditure. The assessee relied upon certain decisions in support of the contentions. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, considering the facts of the case, confirmed the addition and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. Findings of l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ject the expenditure on which were capital in nature. Whereas, appellant have argued that guarantee fee paid for received of such loan from HUDCO is one time expense and was paid to Haryana Government on whose guarantee the loan was released to the appellant. The guarantee fee paid by its inherent nature in one time expenses which is not refundable and hence revenue expenses. In this regard, the appellant has relied in the case of CIT Vs Siwakanii Mills Ltd. (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Central), Ludhiana Vs Sobhag Textile Pvt. Ltd.(2006) 153 taxman 597 where the Hon'ble High Court adjudicated on the following question of law. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding the guarantee commission paid to Canara Bank against purchase of machinery through IDBI as not of capital nature ?' The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court answered the question in the negative, i.e. in favour of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ate Corporation to HUDCO (a Central Government Organization) against grant of loan. For this activity of giving guarantee, the Haryana State Government has taken the guarantee fee. During the appellate proceedings, the counsel of appellant was asked to justify and furnish the documentary evidences showing the provision for making such payment and its justification as business expenditure. The appellant submitted a copy of memorandum dated 16.09.2002 issued by Commissioner and Secretary to the Go .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Haryana against which bank guarantee at 2% i.e. Rs.l 1,21,56,000/- was payable to State Government. The same has been' paid in full. However, (lie appellant failed to produce any evidence regarding any provision of statute under which the State Government may divert part of loan or make such transaction as source of revenue for itself. The appellant in its books of account has amortised the total guarantee fee of Rs.l 121.56 lacs in the period of loan taken for various schemes i.e. for a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ut or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aving given as guarantee for the loans borrowed by the appellant is not one of the expenditure which falls within sections 30 to 36 of the Act. Therefore, it has to be examined within section 37 of the Act. 4.5 In the present case, the appellant is a creation of State Government. The appellant has paid guarantee fee of ₹ 1121.56 lacs to State Government for raising a loan of ₹ 560.78 Crores from another Central Government Organization (HUDCO). No other basis or justification has been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee fee has not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of earning profits from the business activity by the Corporation. Merely because the State Government became guarantor and charged such guarantee fee, the guarantee fee paid by the corporation would not constituted a lawful expenditure so as to claim' deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. 4.6 In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble high court of Knrnataka in the case of CIT Vs. United Breweries Ltd. (20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of remuneration, from the borrowing company and the banks were also advised to obtained such an undertaking from the borrowing company. 4.7 Regarding the appellant's submission on rule of consistency to be adopted by department, it is mentioned that Res judicata is not applicable in Income Tax Proceedings as each assessment year is a separate proceedings. In this regard, I place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Uni .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,91,000/- during the year is merely a diversion of part of loan received from the borrowing company to the State Government without any basis or the business activity of the appellant corporation. The said expenditure incurred is not found to be wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of business and therefore, not allowable in computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". Therefore, the disallowance of ₹ 96,91,000/- on thi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Haryana State Government has taken the Guarantee Fees. The counsel for assessee was directed to explain and justify that it was revenue expenditure. It is also admitted fact that assessee in its books of account has amortized the total guarantee fees of ₹ 1121.56 lacs in the period of loan taken for various schemes i.e. for 13 to 14 years. Therefore, guarantee fees was amortized by the assessee in the books of account. The ld. CIT(Appeals), in the background of these facts noted that asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

overnment decided to levy Guarantee Fee at specified rate on all the current borrowings. The finding of fact recorded by ld. CIT(Appeals) have not been rebutted through any evidence or material on record. It is, therefore, clear case that when the assessee has capitalized the loan taken from HUDCO in the books of account and alleged expenditure of guarantee fees, have been amortized in the books of account in different years, would clearly show that the expenditure claimed as revenue was in-fact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n this regard. It is well settled law that when assessee claimed deduction on account of business expenditure, burden would be upon assessee to prove that the said expenditure was not in the nature of capital expenditure and has been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The assessee, however, failed to produce any evidence or material before authorities below to prove that the guarantee fees paid to State Government, was wholly and exclusively incurred for bus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rted in 227 ITR 464. On going through the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order, Heard counsel for parties. Dismissed. No costs. Since in this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition by non-speaking order, therefore, the same would not attract the doctrine of merger. We rely upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed & Others V State of Kerala & another 245 ITR 360. There .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or material on record, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). We confirm his findings and dismiss this ground of appeal of assessee. 9. On ground No. 3, assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in upholding the addition of ₹ 4,03,129/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer noted that TDS was not deducted on the payments of ₹ 4,03,129/- made for consultancy charges to M/s Consulting Engg. Associates .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Consulting Engineer Associates without deducting TDS. He has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Cresent Expots Syndicate 216 Taxman 258 and decision of the Gujrat High Court in the case of Sikandar Khan N. Tanwar 87 DTR 137 in which issue of paid and payable have been decided in favour of the revenue. The ld. CIT(Appeals), following the same decisions, confirmed the addition and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. 10. The ld. counsel for the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt to make request for admission of the additional evidences or to explain any reason for not filing these documents before authorities below. The ld. DR, therefore, submitted that these evidences could not be considered at the second appellate stage. The ld. DR also pointed out that the assessee pleaded before authorities below that no tax have been deducted on the aforesaid payment and assessee claimed that since amount is paid, therefore, provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version