$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 210/2003
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms.Gargi
Sethee, Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
Counsel.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
20.03.2019
1. This appeal by the Assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (`Act') is directed against the judgment dated 28th February 2002 of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 469/Del/1999 for the
Assessment Year (AY) 1995-96.
2. While admitting this appeal on 12th October 2004, this Court framed the
following question of law for consideration:
"Whether the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal that the compensation
of Rs. 1,18,38,705/- was paid for "extraneous consideration" is not
perverse and contrary to the record?"
3. The above question stands answered today by this Court by a detailed
common judgment in the present appeal and other connected appeals, in the
affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of the
said judgment is placed below.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the ITAT on
the issue is set aside.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
MARCH 20, 2019
tr
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 16th November, 2018
Decided on: 20th March, 2019
+ ITA 210/2003
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi
Sethee, Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
Counsel.
+ ITA 609/2005
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
Counsel.
versus
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi
Sethee, Advocates
+ ITA 611/2005
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
Counsel.
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 1 of 36
versus
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi
Sethee, Advocates.
+ ITA 772/2005
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
Counsel for the Revenue.
versus
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi
Sethee, Advocates.
+ ITA 1134/2005
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
Counsel for the Revenue.
versus
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi
Sethee, Advocates.
+ ITA 400/2009
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 2 of 36
Counsel for the Revenue.
versus
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi
Sethee, Advocates.
+ ITA 742/2009
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
Counsel for the Revenue.
versus
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi
Sethee, Advocates.
+ ITA 55/2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
Counsel for the Revenue.
versus
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms.
Gargi Sethee, Advocates.
+ ITA 548/2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 3 of 36
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
Counsel for the Revenue.
versus
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms.
Gargi Sethee, Advocates.
+ ITA 581/2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
Counsel for the Revenue.
versus
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi
Sethee, Advocates.
+ ITA 2078/2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing
Counsel for the Revenue.
versus
GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi
Sethee, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 4 of 36
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(,,Act) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from
the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the
appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment.
Background facts
2. The Assessee is engaged to the business of construction and sale of
commercial space. The Assessee developed the 17 storied building known as
Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan in Connaught Place in New Delhi. The Assessee
follows the Completed Contract Method (,,CCM) as compared to the
Percentage Completion Method (,,PCM). The case of the Assessee is that
since it follows the CCM, income is not recognised till the completion of the
project. All receipts are treated as ,,advance and all direct expenses are
accounted for as ,,capital work and progress. A reference is made to the
Accounting Standard (,,AS) 7 issued by the Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India (,,ICAI) initially in 1983 which was revised first in
2002 and then in 2016. According to the Assessee, only on completion or
substantial completion of the project, revenue is recognised.
Payment of compensation to flat/space buyers
3. The Assessee states that the Gopal Das Bhawan Project was completed in
the Financial Year (,,FY) 1994-95 relevant to Assessment Year (,,AY)
1995-96. Some of the allottees of the flats refused to take them for
completion since the New Delhi Municipal Council (,,NDMC) changed the
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36
usage of the Lower Ground Floor (,,LGF). The Assessee then started
negotiating with the relevant flat buyers and persuaded them to surrender
their ownership and allotment letters. The Assessee decided to repay the
advance money received from these flat owners which worked out to
Rs.32,08,271. The Assessee also decided to pay in addition compensation
amounting to Rs.1,18,38,705 in lieu of surrender of their rights in the flat.
This expenditure was claimed by the Assessee as ,,revenue in nature and
was charged to the Profit and Loss Account (,,P&L Account).
Proceedings before the AO
4. The Assessing Officer (,,AO) who picked up for scrutiny the Assessees
return for AY 1995-96 by an order-sheet entry dated 5th December 1997
required the Assessee to give the full details and addresses of the persons to
whom the aforementioned compensation amounts were paid. The Assessee
was asked to explain why the said amounts should not be disallowed as
capital expenditure/loss as it had not been paid for business purposes.
5. By a reply dated 15th December 1997 the Assessee contended that the
space to be sold was in its stock and trade. The space allotted to various
persons had been surrendered by them for various reasons. Such persons
who surrendered had insisted that since they had invested money with the
Assessee which had remained with the Assessee for a number of years, the
Assessee should compensate them for the loss of the interest income on such
investment. Considering that the space surrendered by such allottees would
give the Assessee an opportunity to sell the same space at a higher rate, the
Assessee considered it commercially prudent to pay them compensation in
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 6 of 36
order to get the spaces surrendered. The Assessees contention was that
since such payment pertained to stock and trade, it cannot be considered as
capital expenditure or capital loss.
Assessment order
6. The AO negatived the above plea of the Assessee by holding that the
Assessee had not paid any compensation to the allottees but had in fact
"repurchased these flats" since the allottees had "surrendered their rights in
those flats." Consequently, it was held that the compensation paid to the flat
owners could not be said to be business expenditure but rather was "capital
investment in purchase of stock and trade." It was, however, observed that
the Assessee was free to include the cost of compensation in the cost of the
flats so acquired and claim deduction of the amount at the time of sale as
cost of purchase of the flats. It is observed that the Assessee had paid
compensation amount "once and for all to repurchase the property" and this
was "in fact a sale consideration and cannot be allowed as business
expenditure."
7. The AO further observed that enquiries had been made with some of flat
owners to ascertain the treatment they had given to the said receipt of
compensation in their books of accounts and income tax returns. All of them
had shown the amount received from the Assessee as capital gains in their
books of accounts as well as income tax returns after indexation of the cost
of acquisition. This was an additional ground for the AO to reject the plea of
the Assessee that the payment of compensation was business expenditure.
Accordingly, the payment of compensation towards "repurchase of the flat"
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 7 of 36
was disallowed by holding that it was "a capital expenditure." The said
amount was added back to the income of the Assessee.
Order of the CIT (A)
8. In the appeal filed by the Assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax
Appeals [,,CIT (A)] by order dated 30th October, 1998 came to the
following conclusions:
(i) There was no dispute that the Assessee was engaged in the business of
real estate and the space constructed by it constituted its stock and trade;
(ii) The expenditure in relation to stock and trade would be of revenue
nature whether incurred on purchase of stock and trade or compensation for
retaining of stock and trade. Expenditure on stock and trade did not
represent investment of capital nature;
(iii) The same transaction can be of capital nature in the hands of one person
and of revenue nature in the hand of the other on account of the different
nature of their business activities. Therefore, the AOs view that since the
recipients of compensation i.e. the allottees had treated it in their hands as
capital gains, they should be treated as capital expenditure in the hands of
the Assessee, was not based on sound reasoning.
(iv) Expenditure on purchase of stock and trade is charged to the P&L and
trading account at the time of purchase, which cannot be deferred. The
observation of the AO that the Appellant was free to claim the deduction as
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 8 of 36
cost is paid at the time of their sale was not in conformity with the principles
of accountancy.
9. Accordingly the compensation paid to the allottees of the flats for their
surrendering the rights therein was directed to be allowed as business
expenditure of the Assessee, and the view of the AO was, therefore,
reversed.
Impugned order of the ITAT
10. The Revenue went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(,,ITAT) by way of ITA No.469/Del/99 for AY 1995-96. The ITAT took
note of the plea of the Assessee before it that in case the Assessee had not
taken back the space pursuant to the cancellation of booking, "there was
every likelihood of some bigger loss to be suffered since the discontinued
parties/persons would cause all types of obstruction." The Assessee further
contended that "non-payment of compensation would have resulted in loss
of reputation which the Assessee could not afford in its land of business."
11. The ITAT raised certain queries and required the Assessee to place on
record facts relating to the payment of ,,compensation. The ITAT sought
clarification whether
"(i) Compensation was insisted upon by the parties/persons;
(ii) Whether legal opinion was sought before parting with the
compensation; and
(iii) Whether payment of compensation was' provided for in the
agreement entered into at the time of the booking."
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 9 of 36
12. Documents were then placed before the ITAT by the Assessee which it
analysed. In the impugned order, the ITAT arrived at the following
conclusions:
(i) Although in the space buyers agreement, the amount given for booking
of the flat is to be refunded along with the interest in certain eventualities,
"nothing over and above" the said sum was payable and the term
,,compensation does not appear in either the letter of allotment or in the
space buyers agreement.
(ii) The compensation amount had no relationship whatsoever either with
the area comprising a flat booked or with reference to the total amount paid
to the Assessee. There was no material which could justify the "quantum of
payments stated to be the compensation to various persons."
(iii) The opinion given by a lawyer justifying the payment of compensation,
stating that since it would ultimately enhance the value of the space which
could then be sold at a higher price to another buyer, was "a tailor-made
opinion". The huge amounts paid by the Assessee as compensation, even
when the agreement between the parties did not require it, was not justified
event accounting for the cost of litigation that might ensue.
(iv) The payment was for "extraneous considerations" and was not
expenditure that was "expedient to the Assessees business." The
compensation was not provided for an agreement between the parties and
the expenditure towards compensation "far outstripped any expenditure
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 10 of 36
whether legal or otherwise, which the Assessee was supposed to incur in the
eventuality of some of the persons opting out of the agreement to purchase
flats."
13. Consequently, the ITAT by its order dated 28th February 2002 set aside
the order of the CIT (A) and restored the order of the AO. The said order has
been challenged by the Assessee by filing ITA No. 210 of 2003 which
pertains to AY 1995-96. The solitary question of law framed by this Court
while admitting this appeal on 12th October 2004 was "whether the
conclusion recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (,,ITAT) that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid for ,,extraneous consideration is not
perverse and contrary to the record?"
14. In the appeal for AY 1997-98, the ITAT while dealing with the above
question, disagreed with its own view taken in AY 1995-96 and accepted the
plea of the Assessee that the said payment of compensation was in the nature
of revenue expenditure. The ITAT was of the same view in the appeals for
AYs 1996-97, 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2008-09, 2009-10. This explains why
the appeals for all the remaining years, apart from AY 1995-96 on this
aspect are by the Revenue.
15. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. M.S. Syali, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Assessee and Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, learned
counsel for the Revenue.
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 11 of 36
Analysis and reasons
16. A fact which has not been addressed by either the AO or the ITAT is that
the Assessee follows the CCM and not the PCM. AS 7 which was originally
issued by the ICAI in December 1983 was first revised in 2002. The revised
AS 7 came into effect in respect of "all contracts entered into during the
accounting period commencing on or after 1st April 2003."
17. Therefore, as far as the case in hand is concerned, since there is no
dispute that the Gopal Das Bhawan Project was completed in FY 1994-95, it
is AS 7, pre-revised, which would apply. AS 7 as issued in December 1983
is titled "Accounting for Construction Contracts". Para 7.1 acknowledges
the two methods of accounting that are commonly followed: the CCM and
the PCM. Para 7.3 states that under the CCM,
"revenue is recognised only when the contract is completed or
substantially completed; that is, when only minor work is
expected other than warranty obligation. Costs and progress
payments received are accumulated during the course of the
contract but revenue is not recognised until the contract activity
is substantially completed."
18. Para 8 of AS 7 talks of "Costs to be Accumulated for Construction
Contracts". Para 8.1 states that
"Costs attributable to a contract are identified with reference to
the period that commences with the securing of the contract and
closes when the contract is completed."
19. Under para 8.4, the costs incurred by a contractor are stated to be divided
into
"i. Costs that relate directly to a specific contract;
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 12 of 36
ii. Costs that can be attributed to the contract activity in general
and can be allocated to specific contracts;
iii. Costs that relate to the activities of the contractor generally,
or that relate to contract activity but cannot be related to
specific contracts."
20. Para 8.7 of AS 7 elaborates what 8.4 (iii) talks of, viz., examples of costs
that relate to the activities of the contractor generally, or that relate to
contract activity but cannot be related to specific contracts. These include:
"i. general administration and selling costs;
ii. finance costs;
iii. research and development costs;
iv. depreciation of plant and equipment that cannot be allocated
to a particular contract."
21. The pros and cons of the CCM are discussed in para 10. Para 11.2 of AS
7 states that when a contractor uses a particular method of accounting for a
contract, "then in respect of all other contracts that meet similar criteria, the
same method is used." Para 11.3 states that the methods of accounting used
by the contractor and the criteria adopted in selecting the method represents
"an accounting policy." If the contractor changes from PCM to CCM or vice
versa, there has to be a disclosure to the effect of the change and its amount.
22. It must be added here that as far as the present cases are concerned, in all
the AYs in question, the Assessee has followed a consistent accounting
policy by following the CCM. The Revenue has never disputed that the
Assessee follows the CCM and, therefore, what logically flows from the
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 13 of 36
adoption of such accounting policy by the Assessee cannot be overlooked by
the Revenue.
23. One of the basic principles of accountancy is that an expenditure
incurred in relation to stock and trade would be of revenue nature. There can
be no doubt that the unsold flats that had been surrendered to the Assessee
were part of its stock and trade. The AO himself noted that the Assessee had
booked the flats to various persons after receiving periodical amounts as
advance. They were termed as ,,prospective buyers. It was also noted that
after completion of construction, the flats had been "allotted to these persons
and possession had also been handed over to them."
24. There is merit in the contention of the Assessee that it had not
"repurchased the flats from the buyers." The stage of parting with
title/ownership in relation to commercial space allotted to the buyers had not
been reached. The AO himself noted that "since the Assessee has not sold
the space which has been surrendered by the buyers/allottees, therefore, the
compensation paid in lieu of surrender of rights in flats/space shown in work
and progress in balance-sheet will enhance the value of work and progress."
25. It was contended by Ms. Malhotra that even if the compensation paid for
the surrender of the flats is not treated as capital expenditure, it should form
part of the valuation of stock. In reply, Mr. Syali pointed out that the
Assessee has explained that the reason for payment of compensation was
that the LGF initially was approved by NDMC as ,,aircondition ed space
and, therefore, while booking that space, prospective buyers proceeded on
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 14 of 36
the basis that it would be for commercial use. However, in terms of the
completion certificate issued by the NDMC, the LGF was sanctioned as
,,storage. It was for this reason that the buyers lost interest. The Assessee
then decided to return the advance received and also compensate the buyers
since the buyers funds had remained with the Assessee for some time. The
Assessee had sought to explain that this compensation corresponded to the
increase in the resale value.
26. There is merit in the contention of the Assessee, based on AS 2 that
compensation paid subsequent to the completion of the project is an
,,extraordinary item. It was not ,,cost of completion of the project and,
therefore, such compensation could not be added to the value of the stock
and trade of the Assessee. AS 2 governs valuation of inventories. ,,Cost
comprises all of the costs of purchase, cost of completion and other costs
incurred "in bringing the inventories to their present location and condition."
That which is not relevant to bringing the stock to its present condition or
location cannot be a part of its value.
27. Under AS 2, not everything that relates to stock can be added to its
value. The following have to be ,,excluded from cost and ,,recognized as
expense:
"(a) abnormal amounts of wasted materials, labour, or other
production costs;
(b) storage costs, unless those costs are necessary in the
production process prior to a further production stage;
(c) administrative overheads that do not contribute to bringing
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 15 of 36
the inventories to their present location and condition; and
(d) selling and distribution costs."
28. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the Assessee that the
compensation paid to the flat buyers upon surrender of the respective
allotted commercial spaces cannot be added to the value of ,,stock and trade.
In the considered view of the Court, the view expressed by the CIT (A)
merits acceptance. The conclusion of the ITAT that the payment was made
for ,,extraneous consideration appears to be based on surmises and
conjectures.
29. The mere fact that the space buyers agreement or the allotment letter
did not mandate payment of compensation would not come in the way of the
Assessee treating such payment as ,,revenue expenditure. In Shahzada
Nand & Sons v. CIT, Patiala (1977) 108 ITR 358 (SC) it was held that the
requirement of ,,commercial expediency
"must be judged not in the light of the 19th century laissez faire
doctrine which regarded man as an economic being concerned
only to protect and advance his self-interest but in the context
of current socio-economic thinking which places the general
interest of the community above the personal interest of the
individual and believes that a business or undertaking is the
product of the combined efforts of the employer and the
employees and where there is sufficiently large profit, after
providing for the salary or remuneration of the employer and
the employees and other prior charges such as interest on
capital, depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all
fairness go to the employees."
30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 16 of 36
the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business
expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial pay to
an employee as expenditure under Section 36 (1) (ii) of the Act, it had to
necessarily be paid pursuant to a contractual obligation. The mere fact that
the commission was paid ,,ex gratia would not necessarily mean it is
unreasonable. It was observed "even where the nature of the work as remain
the same, commercial expediency may require payment of commission to an
employee." The payment was allowed as business expenditure.
31. In Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. v. Nainital Bank Ltd. (1966) 62
ITR 638 (SC) the Assessee bank had settled the claims of those who had
pledged their jewellery with the Bank which was stolen by dacoits. The
question was whether such payments could be allowed as business
expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It
was acknowledged that
"In choosing to compensate its constituents for the loss of their
jewellery and maintain its business connections and goodwill,
the bank laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business."
32. It was further explained that
"The sole question is whether the bank in incurring the
expenditure acted in the interest of and for the purpose of its
business. The bank is carrying on banking business and
advances loans on the security of jewellery. The credit of a
banking business is very sensitive: it largely thrives upon the
confidence which its constituents have in its management. To
maintain that confidence the management has often to make
concessions and thereby to preserve the goodwill of the
business and its relations with the clientele. The bank could
have, if so advised, taken its stand strictly on its legal
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36
obligations, and could have recovered the amounts due by the
constituents at the same time denying liability to make any
compensation for the loss of jewellery pledged with it. But such
a stand might very well have ruined its business, especially in
the rural areas in which it operated. The bank had evidently two
courses open: to enforce its rights strictly according to law, and
thereby to lose the goodwill it had built up among the
constituents, or to compensate the constituents for loss of their
jewellery, and maintain its business connections and goodwill.
In choosing the second alternative, in our judgment, the bank
laid out expenditure for the purpose of its business. Paying to
the constituents the price of the jewellery stolen in a robbery or
a burglary was therefore expenditure for the purpose of the
business. There can be no doubt that the expenditure was
wholly and exclusively in the interest of the business. The
expenditure was laid out for no other purpose."
33. Applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in the above decisions
to the case in hand, the plausible conclusion is that the compensation paid by
the Assessee to the allottees of the commercial spaces for the surrender of
their rights therein cannot be said to be disallowable on the ground of such
payment having been made for ,,extraneous considerations.
34. In Kanga and Palkhivalas Commentary on the Income Tax Law
Volume 1, the distinction between the expressions "for the purpose of
earning profits and ,,for purpose of the business was brought out as under:
"11. Wholly and Exclusively for the Purposes of the Business.
(a) Purpose of Business- Before the corresponding section in
the 1922 Act was amended in 1939, allowance was given in
respect of any non-capital expenditure ,,incurred solely for the
purpose of earning such profits or gains. Under the present
law, the expenditure should be laid out ,,wholly and exclusively
for the purposes of the business. The two expressions are not
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 18 of 36
synonymous; the latter is wider than the former. Expenditure
may be for the purpose of the business although it may not be
incurred for the purpose of earning the profits of the business.
This is established by the decision of the Supreme Court in
Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT 63 ITR 207. The expression "for
the purposes of business" is wider than the expression "for the
purpose of earning income." The former would include within
its scope expenditure incurred on grounds of commercial
expediency."
35. In the present case, the Assessee has a plausible explanation for making
such payment of compensation to protect its ,,business interests. While it is
true that there was no ,,contractual obligation to make the payment, it is
plain that the Assessee was also looking to build its own reputation in the
real estate market.
36. Further the mere fact that the recipients treated the said payment as
,,capital gains in their hands in their returns would not be relevant in
deciding the issue whether the payment by the Assessee should be treated as
,,business expenditure. As explained by the Madras High Court in CIT v.
Sarda Binding Works 102 ITR 187 (Mad), it is the point of view of the
payer which is relevant.
37. The decision in CIT v. Mangal Tirth Estates Ltd. 303 ITR 366 (Mad)
was a case where the Assessee therein had also followed the CCM. It was
engaged in the business of construction and sale of a multi-storeyed office
cum shopping complex. The Assessee had under the development agreement
agreed to provide air conditioning to the shops and to also allot car park
space. The Assessee claimed deduction on advertisement, sales promotion,
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 19 of 36
legal charges and claimed losses in its return. The AO rejected the claim on
the ground that only a portion of the expenditure related to the space already
constructed could be allowed. It was held that since the Assessee had
maintained the system of accounts on mercantile basis by adopting CCM,
the revenue expenditure "normally, must be allowed in its entirety in the
year in which it was incurred. The Assessee was held entitled to deduction
of the entire legal and advertisement expenses in the year in which it was
incurred." On a similar analogy, in the present case, the payment of
compensation is to be allowed in full in the year of payment of such
compensation.
38. The result of the above discussion is that the Court holds that the
payment made by the Assessee to the allottees of the flats for their
surrendering the rights therein should be allowed as business expenditure of
the Assessee.
39. This Court accordingly answers the question of law framed in ITA 210
of 2003 the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the
Revenue by holding that the conclusion recorded by the ITAT that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid by the Assessee for ,,extraneous
consideration is perverse and contrary to the record.
40. ITA 210 of 2003 filed by the Assessee is accordingly allowed.
Accordingly, the appeals of the Revenue vis-à-vis the said issue would fail.
However, the Court proposes to pass separate orders in each of the appeals.
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 20 of 36
Is rental income business income or income from house property?
41. The next issue that arises is whether rental income earned by the
Assessee from its stock and trade should be treated as income from house
property (IHP), as claimed by the Assessee, or as business income?
42. The question arose even in AY 1995-96 where the AO by order dated
27th March 1998 assessed the said rental income as ,,income from business.
During AY 1995-96 the Assessee had shown a sum of Rs.2,09,40,492 as a
rental income from the flat/space given on rent to various parties. These
spaces/flats were part of the stock and trade and the rental income was
claimed as income from house property. The Assessee also claimed
deduction of 1/5th of the repairs amounting to Rs. 41,29,837 under Section
24 of the Act.
43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December
1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is
nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied
on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company 54 ITR 17 where the
Supreme Court held that where a person buys and sells property, the income
from that activity should be assessed as business income whereas the rental
income from such property is assessed as income from house property.
44. For AY 1995-96, the CIT (A) in the order dated 30th October 1998
agreed with the Assessee and held that as the Assessee was the owner of the
property which had been let out otherwise than in the course of business of
letting and subletting, the rental income had to be assessed as IHP. It was
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 21 of 36
noted that
"The appellant had entered into an agreement with the co-
owners of the leasehold land for construction of the property at
the cost of the appellant. On completion of the building, the co-
owners were entitled to the specific share and the balance space
belonged to the appellant which it was free to assign or sell or
otherwise transfer to any person, firm, company or association.
There is therefore no doubt that the· appellant had acquired the
ownership of its share of the space."
45. The ITAT in its order dated 28th February 2002 for AY 1995-96 was of
the view that on this aspect, no interference was warranted with the order of
the CIT(A) whereby rental income was taxed under the head IHP. The
Revenue file ITA 69 of 2003 in this Court which was dismissed by an order
dated 8th January 2004. The said order became final.
46. The ITAT appears to have been consistent in this view. For AY 1997-98,
the ITAT again held in favour of the Assessee on this issue. The Revenue
then filed ITA No.772 of 2005 in this Court. However, by an order dated
10th October 2007, this Court declined to interfere on the ground that the
Revenues appeal ITA No.69 of 2003 for AY 1995 -96 had been dismissed
by this Court by an order dated 8th January 2004. This Court noted that the
Revenue accepted that decision and did not challenge it any further.
Accordingly, the Court declined to frame any substantial question of law on
this issue. The said order dated 10th October 2007 on this aspect does not
appear to have been challenged further by the Revenue.
47. The resultant position as far as AYs 1995-96 and 1997-98 are concerned
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 22 of 36
is that the Revenue has accepted the finding of the ITAT as affirmed by this
Court.
48. For AY 1996-97, the ITAT decided the issue following its decision for
AY 1997-98 which, as already noticed, attained finality. However, the
Revenue chose to challenge the ITATs finding on the issue for AY 1996-97
by filing ITA 2078 of 2010. This Court while admitting the said appeal on
3rd January 2011 framed a question of law, viz., whether the rental income is
to be assessed as IHP or as business income?
49. The Court finds that barring this one year i.e. AY 1996-97, in all the
other AYs, the consistent view of the ITAT that rental income is to be
assessed as IHP and not business income has been accepted by the Revenue.
50. Ms. Malhotra was unable to point out why only for AY 1996-97 a
different view should be taken. Both Ms. Malhotra for the Revenue and Mr.
Syali for the Assessee have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in
Ansal Housing Finance Company Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Del) as
supporting their respective cases. A careful perusal of the said judgment
shows that the point in fact is answered in favour of the Assessee and not
against it.
51.1 Ms. Malhotra sought to rely on the decision in Chennai Properties and
Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) as supporting the case of
the Revenue. However, this Court is not able to agree with the above
submission. In the said case, the object of the Appellant Assessee company
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 23 of 36
was to acquire and let out properties in the city. The rental income received
therefrom was shown as income from business in the return filed by the
Assessee.
51.2 The AO, however, held that since the income was received from the
letting out of properties, it was in the nature of rental income, and
accordingly taxed the same accordingly under that head. The CIT(A)
allowed the appeal of the Assessee by holding that income was from
business and directed that it should be treated and taxed as such. The ITAT
resultantly confirmed the order.
51.3 The High Court allowed the appeal of the Revenue by holding that the
income derived by letting out of properties would not be income from
business but instead could only be assessed as income from house property.
The Supreme Court in a further appeal by the Assessee observed that the
main object of the Assessee company was to acquire and hold properties and
let out the same and that in the return filed, the entire income which was
assessed therein was from letting out of such properties. It was further
observed that "letting out of properties is in fact the business of the
Assessee." Applying the judgment in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal 44 ITR 362 (SC) , the Supreme
Court held that the Assessee had rightly disclosed the income under the head
,,Income from Business and restored the decision of the ITAT.
51.4 The said decision is distinguishable on fact in its application to the case
on hand. Here the question is confined to the letting of properties forming
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 24 of 36
part of the Assessees stock in trade. Barring AY 1996 -97, for all other AYs
the consistent view taken by the ITAT, as has been affirmed by this Court
and accepted by the Revenue is that it should be treated as IHP.
52. The rule of consistency as explained by the Supreme Court in
Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, [1977] 106 ITR 1
(SC) and Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) was reiterated by it in CIT v. Excel
Industries Ltd. (2014) 13 SCC 459 in the following manner:
31. It appears from the record that in several assessment
years, the Revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal in
favour of the assessee and did not pursue the matter any
further but in respect of some assessment years the matter
was taken up in appeal before the Bombay High Court
but without any success. That being so, the Revenue
cannot be allowed to flip-flop on the issue and it ought let
the matter rest rather than spend the tax payers money in
pursuing litigation for the sake of it."
53. Following the rule of consistency as explained in the above decisions,
this Court declines to entertain the plea of the Revenue which appears to be
confined to AY 1996-97, with none of the earlier or subsequent AYs being
challenged by the Revenue. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of
the Assessee and against the Revenue by answering the question in the
affirmative and holding that the rental income of the Assessee from the
properties forming part of its stock-in-trade would be IHP and not business
income. ITA 2078 of 2010 being the appeal of the Revenue for AY 1996-97
is accordingly dismissed.
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 25 of 36
Brokerage and Commission
54. The next major issue concerns the expenditure on brokerage and
commission. The issue arose in AY 1995-96 when the Assessee debited
Rs.1,45,25,708 to the P&L account as brokerage and commission towards
service rendered by brokers for sale of flats and leasing out commercial
spaces/flats.
55. According to the AO, the amount so paid appeared to be extraordinary.
The Assessees plea was that the brokers were demanding higher amount s as
they were not being compensated with income which may accrue to the
owners in future because of the interest free element of the huge amount
comprising security deposit, advance rent etc. Further the payments had
been made through account payee checks purely on commercial
consideration.
56. The AO, however, did not agree and disallowed Rs.41,84,947 as being
in excess and unreasonable and valued back for the income of Assessee. In
appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that it is not for the AO to
determine the reasonableness or otherwise of the expenditure. In the further
appeal by the Revenue for AY 1995-96, the ITAT in its order dated 28th
February 2002 agreed with the stand of the CIT(A).
57. For AY 1995-96, the Revenue filed ITA No.69 of 2003 in this Court
raising a question on this issue but it was not admitted by this Court by the
order dated 8th January 2004. Likewise, for AY 1997-98, when the ITAT
followed its earlier order the Revenue filed ITA 772 of 2005. This Court did
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 26 of 36
not frame any question on this issue following its earlier order dated 8 th
January 2004 in ITA 69 of 2003.
58. Again, only for AY 1996-97, the Revenues appeal ITA 2078 of 2010 on
this issue was admitted by this Court by its order dated 3rd January 2011.
The Assessee has pointed out that for all the subsequent years i.e. AY 1999-
2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 the appeals of the Revenue on this
question i.e. ITA Nos. 581 of 2010, 548 of 2010, 742 of 2008 and 400 of
2009 did not even raise this issue. In other words, for all of the above years
except AY 1996-97, the Revenue accepted the case of the Assessee.
59. Following the rule of consistency, this Court finds no merit in the
contention of the Revenue and this question is accordingly answered in
favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. ITA 2078 of 2010 filed by
the Revenue on this aspect is accordingly dismissed.
Expenditure on foreign travel
60. The next issue arising in the ITA 2078 of 2010 for AY 1996-97 concerns
expenditure on foreign travel. During AY 1996-97, the Assessee incurred
Rs.15,82,083 on foreign travel of its employees. This was to promote the
sale and leasing out of the Assessees commercial space and as a result of
the said visits, space was leased to Bank of Korea and the Korea
Development Bank. The AO disallowed the expenditure holding that it
could not be allowed as expenditure against income from house property.
61. The CIT(A) reversed this finding of the AO holding that the lease of
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 27 of 36
space is a part of the Assessees business and such expenditure incurred on
the lease is a part of the business and such expenditure and exploitation of
the stock in trade is admissible as business expenditure.
62. The ITAT reversed the ruling of the CIT (A) and upheld the decision of
the AO to the extent of disallowing 50% of the foreign travel expenditure.
This issue is similar to the issue of brokerage and commission which was
held allowable and accepted by the Revenue for all of the AYs in question
except for AY 1996-97. Again, following the rule of consistency, this Court
answers this issue in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
Interest and guarantee commission
63. The next issue is the treatment of the amount paid by the Assessee on
account of interest and guarantee commission. The AO sought to add this
amount for AY 1996-97 to the Assessees income on the ground that the
loan raised from the Bank by the Assessee was given to its sister concern
without charging interest. The ITAT, however, deleted the addition.
64. The facts in brief for AY 1997-98 were that the interest amount of
Rs.32225676 comprised the following
"Rs.1,07,91,828/- on CC limit, paid to IndusInd Bank
Ltd.
Rs.2,14,33,848/- on loan of Rs.9 Cr. taken from Citi
Bank."
65. The AO disallowed the interest paid to IndusInd Bank on the ground that
the interest was required to be capitalized under the head of ,,capital work
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 28 of 36
and progress. In fact in AYs 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Assessee
itself had capitalised interest in the capital work and progress. The cash
credit limit available to the Assessee was used by it to give a loan to its
sister concerns for purchasing land in Gurgaon.
66. As regards the payment of interest to Citi Bank, the Assessee explained
that it had provided interest free finance to associate companies for purchase
of 105 acres of land. As against the interest burden of Rs.2 crores per year,
the Assessee would receive Rs.1.05 crore in 5 instalments.
67. According to the AO, given that the aggregate interest burden was Rs.10
crores up to 31st March in the relevant year, the Assessee would get only 1
lac per acre, the interest was not incurred for the purposes of the Assessees
own business but to benefit associate companies. The case of the Assessee
was that as long as the conditions of Sections 36 (1) (iii) of the Act are met,
deduction of interest cannot be denied merely because the Assessee was a
cash rich company having enough resources of its own.
68. It is pointed out that in the earlier years Gopal Das Bhawan was still
under construction and the interest was capitalised only up to the stage of
completion of the project under ,,capital work and progress. The interest on
the CC limit for the subsequent period, after completion of project, was
rightly claimed and allowed as a revenue expense.
69. It is explained by the Assessee that the CC limit was not in respect of the
Ardee City Project which had been taken up only in 1995 by entering into an
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 29 of 36
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the associate companies. It is
explained that on account of the land ceiling laws in Haryana, more than 20
acres of agricultural land could not be purchased by one entity. To set up a
colony, a developer had to have a number of associate companies to acquire
contiguous land of 100 acres and this led to entering into the MoU with the
associate companies on 17th March 2005. Clause 2 of the MoU provided that
the Assessee would arrange the funds for purchase of the lands. Clause 11
provided for payment of service charge for providing interest free finance.
Since the Assessee was not eligible to seek licence to develop by itself a
housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free
advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of
Assessees business.
70. The Assessees case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA
Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero
Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay
High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003)
260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of
the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As
explained in CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 723 (Bom) and
this Court in Regal Theatre v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 205 (Del) and CIT v.
Gautam Motors (2011) 334 ITR 326 (Del) merely because the Assessee was
a cash rich company, the payment of interest cannot be disallowed as
business expenditure.
71. Further as rightly pointed out, AS 2 would apply in terms of which, with
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 30 of 36
the Assessee following the CCM, the expenditure incurred subsequent to the
completion of the project cannot be attributed to work and had to be allowed
only as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the question is answered in the
affirmative in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
Withdrawal of credit of TDS
72. The next issue to be considered is whether the Assessee was liable to
deduct tax at source (TDS) on the rent received from tenants of properties of
which the Assessee was not the owner. This issue arises in two AYs i.e.
1995-96 (ITA 611 of 2005) and 1996-97 (ITA 609 of 2005).
73. The Assessee let out space in Gopal Das Bhawan for which during AY
1995-96 the tenants paid rent by deducting TDS. A sum of Rs. 24,65,761 of
such TDS was claimed by the Assessee as credit. Since the property had
already been sold, the rent received by the Assessee from the tenants was
passed on to the respective owners and this was to the tune of
Rs.1,07,20,754. Besides passing on this rent, the Assessee also deposited
Rs.25,04,368 as tax on behalf of the owners and TDS certificates were
issued to such owners.
74. By virtue of the exercise of power under Section 154, the AO withdrew
the credit of TDS in the sum of Rs.24,65,761 on the basis that the Assessee
was not the owner of the property and further that the rent on which tax was
deducted was not shown as income.
75. The CIT (A) reversed the finding of the AO taking into account the fact
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 31 of 36
that the Assessee had also deposited tax of Rs.25,04,368. Tax on the rent
had been paid twice: first by the tenants and then by the Assessee.
Accordingly, it was held that credit of TDS could not be denied to the
Assessee only because there was no corresponding income. It was held that
Section 199 cannot be applied to deny credit of TDS. The ITAT upheld the
order of the CIT (A) on the ground that the issue was a debatable one and
fell outside the purview of Section 154.
76. For AY 1996-97, the credit of TDS was Rs. 52,92,346 and the tax
deposited by the Assessee on behalf of the flat buyers was Rs. 32,81,197.
77. The Court on considering the submissions of the parties is of the view
that the AO also did not dispute the fact that the Assessee passed on the rent
collected to the respective owners. The TDS deducted at the time of such
passing on of rental income was also deposited by the Assessee. Further, the
owners did disclose the rental income in their returns. Thus on the one hand,
there was credit of TDS and on the other hand there was debit of tax paid on
behalf of the owners.
78. The Court is of the view that there was no occasion to invoke Section
154 of the Act, since the issue was a debatable one. The decisions of the CIT
(A) as affirmed by the ITAT take a plausible view and deserve to be upheld.
79. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that the plea of
the Assessee should succeed. Accordingly, the question is answered in
favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 32 of 36
Interest under Section 201 (1A)
80. The next question is about charging of interest under Section 201(1A).
The view that while passing on the rents collected to the respective owners
the Assessee should have deducted TDS. Further, that interest thereon under
Section 201 (1A) of the Act was also liable to be paid.
81. While the AO levied interest, the CIT (A) following the order in AY
1995-96 where it held that the Assessee was not liable to deduct TDS in
respect of rent received on behalf of others, cancelled the interest. The ITAT
agreed with the CIT (A).
82. Under Section 194-I of the Act, the liability to deduct TDS is on the
tenant paying the rent. The amount passed on to the owners by the Assessee
was not its capacity as tenant. It is further pointed out that for AY 1998-99
the Revenue accepted the order of the CIT (A) by not filing any further
appeal. This issue is also, therefore, accordingly answered in favour of the
Assessee and against the Revenue.
83. The issue is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and
against the Revenue.
Advertisement expenses
84. The next issue concerns deduction of advertisement expenses. The claim
of advertisement and publicity expenses in respect of the Ardee City Project
was disallowed by the AO for AY 1997-98 on the ground that the Assessee
was following the CCM and the expenditure should have been debited to
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 33 of 36
capital work in progress. The CIT (A) referred to AS 2 issued by the ICAI
and held that since finance and selling costs are usually excluded from the
accumulative contract cost, the advertisement expenses was not required to
be capitalised, even if it was project specific. The ITATT concurred with th
CIT (A).
85. The issue is covered by the decision in CIT v. Mangal Tirth Estates Ltd.
(supra) where in para 41 it was held as under:
"41. The expenses amortized in the accounts consisted of legal
expenses advertisement expenses and sales promotion
expenses. As far as legal expenses are concerned the kind of the
legal expenses incurred demanding the amortization is not
clearly spelt out. On the expenditure on sales promotion and
advertisement, given the nature of business of the assessee
being one of construction and promotion of shopping complex,
even going by the completed contract method, it is difficult to
say that it is a one-time affair. Admittedly, the assessee has
completed one phase of the project. The construction is of the
whole complex. As such, taking note of the nature of business,
it is not possible to say that the expenditure incurred for sales
promotion and advertisement would have relevance to one
portion alone. In the circumstances, it is difficult to apportion a
part of this expenditure as relatable to the completed phase
alone and to carry the balance to future years for adjustment.
The facts peculiar to the facts of an assessment with reference
to the maintenance of accounts cannot be ignored. Hence,
keeping in mind the nature of business and the relevancy of
expenditure and the character of the same, we uphold the order
of the Tribunal in so far as legal expenses and advertisement are
concerned. In the circumstances, we hold that the assessee is
entitled to have the deduction of the expenditure on
advertisement and legal expenses in full in the year in which it
was incurred. On the question of sales promotion charges, the
Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 34 of 36
consider the claim to the extent law permitted. Taking note of
the overall facts and the nature of business, we confirm the
order of the Tribunal on this expenditure."
86. Further in AYs 1995-96 and 1996-97 a similar expenditure was allowed
and no question was framed by this Court. The Assessee being in the real
estate business cannot carry on its business without publicity. The
expenditure was necessary for the promotion of the business. The question is
accordingly answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
Service charges
87. The question whether service charges are allowable as revenue
expenditure arises for AYs 2001-02 and 2003-04.
88. The Assessee is admittedly following the CCM. Service charges were
incurred after the completion of the project and would not be part of the
capital work in progress. Having been incurred at a stage subsequent to the
completion of the project it had to be shown as revenue expenditure and was
rightly allowed as such by the ITAT. This question is also therefore
answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
Scope of Section 154
89. The last issue concerns the scope of Section 154 and whether the ITAT
was right in holding that it could not be invoked by the Revenue in the facts
and circumstance of the present case.
90. As rightly pointed out by the Assessee, the issue concerning TDS credit
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 35 of 36
was a debatable issue. The question has been admitted only for two years i.e.
AYs 1995-96 and 1996-97. With the issue indeed being a debatable one the
ITAT rightly held that there was no occasion for invoking of Section 154 of
the Act. This view is a plausible one and in view of the settled legal position
does not call for any interference.
91. Consequently, this issue is also answered in favour of the Assessee and
against the Revenue.
Conclusion
92. In view of the above discussion:
(i) The questions framed in each of the appeals stand answered in favour of
the Assessee and against the Revenue;
(ii) ITA 210 of 2003 by the Assessee is allowed and the remaining appeals
of the Revenue are dismissed.
93. Separate consequential orders will be passed in each of the appeals
accordingly.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
MARCH 20, 2019
tr
ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 36 of 36
|
