The question as to whether the expenditure would fall for consideration under section 35AB or the question as to whether the expenditure is on account of revenue or capital has to be decided by taking note of the facts and circumstances leading to the said expenditure. As pointed out by the Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT v. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd.[1998] 98 Taxman 112, in order to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, one must look at the nature and character of the advantage in a commercial sense having regard to the purpose of the outlay and its intended object and effect. As pointed out by High Court if the expenditure is for carrying on or conduct of the business, then it may be regarded as an integral part of the profit making process, and the expenditure qualifies for being considered as a revenue expenditure.
The assessee-company initially filed u/s 139(1), a return supported by regular accounts, and showing substantial book profit and offering MAT. However thereafter its accounts came to be inspected by the Registrar of Companies who gave certain directions to modify its Annual Accounts. On the basis of those directions the assessee revised its profit and loss account and balance sheet which resulted in its income being negative. The corrected accounts were placed before the shareholders for their approval. Note no.7 of the Notes attached and forming part of the accounts was approved by the shareholders in the annual general meeting. The assessee however filed the revised return based on the revised accounts, showing a book loss, beyond the time limit prescribed in section 139(5).
It is no doubt true that the Tribunal as well as the Assessing Officer had recorded the fact that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. Hence, the accrual theory of interest income was to be assessed in the year in which it had accrued and had become due. As already pointed out by the Apex Court, in the mercantile system of accounting, even though the principle of accrual is followed, the real income theory, nevertheless, has its relevance to find out the assessability of an income.
We agree with the assessee’s contention that the written down value of the assets at the hands of the amalgamated company will be the written down value at the hands of the amalgamating company for the immediate preceding previous year arrived at after reducing the depreciation actually allowed in the said preceding previous year and Explanation 3 will have no relevance for the purpose of finding out the written down value of the amalgamating company, which, in turn, is that of the amalgamated company.
. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband, but in joint name with her husband, we agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee herein that unless and until there are materials to show that the assessee is the exclusive owner of the residential property, the harshness of the proviso cannot be applied to the facts herein. Apart from that, 50% ownership is with reference to the clinic situated in the ground floor. As such, the entire property is not an exclusive residential property. Hence, we are inclined to agree with the assessee’s contention that the joint ownership of the property would not stand in the way of claiming exemption under Section 54F.
On the issue of expenditure of 66.82 lakhs towards the issue of shares to the Employees Stock Option is concerned, the Tribunal pointed out that the shares were issued to the employees only for the interest of the business of the assessee to induce employees to work in the best interest of the assessee. The allotment of shares was done by the assessee in strict compliance of SEBI regulations, which mandate that the difference between the market prices and the price at which the option is exercised by the employees is to be debited to the Profit and Loss Account as an expenditure. The Tribunal pointed out that what had been adopted was not notional or contingent as had been submitted by the Revenue.
Delhi High Court held that whether the prior period expenses were shown separately or not, the assessee would nevertheless be entitled to have the adjustment of the prior period expenses in the matter of computing the net profit of the assessee. Thus on mere fact that the assessee had shown its prior period expenses in the extraordinary items separately, did not mean the net profit was arrived at de hors these items. The Delhi High Court further pointed out that the assessee had not claimed any deduction with the net profit on the basis of any clauses given in the Explanation to section 115JA(2). Consequently the question was answered in favour of the assessee. The view expressed by the Delhi High Court is agreed with and is applied to the instant case.
The Tribunal ignored that the role of the assessee with regard to the goods supplied by supplier was only that of a bailee and so the value of goods cannot constitute income in its hands. The entire contention of the revenue rested on the wrong premise that the payment had been made by the owner NSTL, a fact which was totally against the agreed terms of the contract between the assessee and NSTL.
CIT V. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of shares and debentures of the company to public subscription, which qualify for consideration under Section 35D, are underwriting commission, brokerage and charges for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of the prospectus and nothing more. There is a residual clause to sub clause D, which shows such other items of expenditure not being expenditure eligible for any allowance or deduction under any other provisions of the Act as may be prescribed.
Premier Mills Limited merely used the assessee firm as a special vehicle for the purpose of achieving, what it would not be possible for it to achieve in a legal way. It was found that as Premier Mills Limited could not purchase its own shares and in order to circumvent Section 77 of the Companies Act, it decided to repurchase the shares through the assessee herein, which subsequently sold the same to the sister concern, wherein the spouse of Managing Director of Premier Mills Limited was a Managing Director of the sister concern.
