Case Law Details
Edenic Propbuild Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, disposed of cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee arising from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The dispute related to the allowability of project expenses written off, lease rent expenses, and administrative expenses incurred by the assessee, a company engaged in the business of real estate, construction, and development.
The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed a total expenditure of Rs. 31,74,10,824/- claimed in the profit and loss account. This comprised project expenses written off of Rs. 9,70,88,219/-, lease rent expenses of Rs. 21,79,51,620/-, and administrative expenses of Rs. 23,70,985/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition relating to project expenses but upheld the disallowance of lease rent and administrative expenses, resulting in appeals by both parties.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had entered into a development agreement dated 24 November 2007 with the Royal Calcutta Turf Club (RCTC) for developing a club/hotel project. The assessee incurred expenditure of Rs. 9,70,88,219/-, which was reflected as Capital Work-in-Progress (CWIP). However, disputes between the parties led to prolonged arbitration and litigation, following which the assessee decided to abandon the project completely and wrote off the CWIP.
The Tribunal further noted that under the development agreement, the assessee was required to pay annual lease rent to RCTC. The assessee had also paid an interest-free refundable security deposit of Rs. 72,65,05,405/-. Pursuant to an arbitration award dated 24 September 2010, the assessee became liable to pay annual contribution of the higher of Rs. 21,79,51,621/- or 10% of the project’s annual top-line revenue, even if the project was not completed by March 2014. The assessee paid Rs. 21,79,51,620/- under the award, which was disallowed by the AO and the disallowance was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that after permanently abandoning the project, it had no option but to exit the agreement while protecting its financial interests, including the substantial security deposit. It relied on judicial precedents to contend that expenditure relating to an abandoned project is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). It also argued that lease rent was revenue expenditure and that the administrative expenses represented routine statutory and operational expenses necessary for maintaining the company.
The Departmental Representative supported the AO’s findings but also pointed out that the CIT(A) had taken inconsistent views by allowing the project expenses while confirming the lease rent disallowance despite both arising from the abandoned project.
The Tribunal held that it was undisputed that the project had been conclusively abandoned and that the expenses could no longer remain capitalized. Relying on the decisions in Binani Cement Ltd. and Alcove Industries Ltd., it held that project-related expenditure in respect of an abandoned project is allowable as revenue expenditure in the year the decision to abandon the project is taken. It therefore upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,70,88,219/- towards project expenses written off and extended the same reasoning to the lease rent of Rs. 21,79,51,620/-, holding it to be allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also observed that Indo Rama Synthesis (I) Ltd. supported the assessee’s claim.
Regarding the administrative expenses, the Tribunal held that as long as the company continued to exist, it was required to incur routine statutory and administrative expenses to maintain its legal existence. Accordingly, it deleted the disallowance of Rs. 23,70,985/-.
The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed, while the assessee’s appeal was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee, where ITA No.7337 has been filed by the Revenue and ITA No.7320 has been filed by the assessee. Since the issues are interconnected hence these two appeals are being disposed of through a single order.
1.1 This appeal arises from order dated 28.06.2019, passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-34, New Delhi, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”).
1.2 It is seen that the assessee is primarily engaged in the business of real estate, construction and development. The Ld. AO added an amount of Rs.31,74,10,824/- claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account on the ground that the nexus between this expenditure and business activities could not be established by the assessee. The breakup of this consolidated amount of addition is as under: –
i. Project expenses written off Rs.970,88,219/- (this addition has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), for which the Revenue is in appeal);
ii. Lease rent expenses amounting to rs.21,79,51,620/- (this addition has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), for which the assessee is in appeal);
iii. Other administrative expenses amounting to Rs.23,70,985/-(this addition has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), for which the assessee is in appeal).
1.3 For the sake of background it needs to be mentioned that the assessee entered into an agreement dated 24.11.2007 with Royal Calcutta Turf Club (RCTC), whereby a development right was granted to the assessee to develop a piece of land owned by RCTC to operate a club/hotel. In this connection the assessee incurred expenditure aggregating to Rs.970,88,219/- which was duly reflected as Capital Work-in-Progress (CWIP) in the balance sheet. However, as is evident from the records before us, there were serious performance related disputes between the assessee and RCTC due to which there were prolonged arbitration and litigation proceedings. Due to these factors the assessee decided to not go ahead with the project and as a result abandoned the same completely. In light of this the CWIP of Rs.970,88,219/- was written off. The second point of contention pertains to lease rent expenses written off at Rs.21,79,51,620/-. Here it is seen that as per the development agreement dated 24.11.2007, the assessee was obligated to pay an annual contribution in the form of lease rent to RCTC. Here it was brought to our notice that the assessee had also paid an interest free refundable security deposit of Rs.72,65,05,405/- to RCTC. It is seen that the parties preferred arbitration due to the dispute, where an award was granted dated 24.09.2010. As per this award (w.e.f. April, 2014) the assessee was required to pay an annual contribution of the higher of Rs.21,79,51,621/- per annum or 10% of the annual top line revenue of the said project. As per the arbitration award this amount was payable even if the project was not completed by March, 2014. It is seen that the assessee ended up paying Rs.21,79,51,620/- as part of the arbitration award, which was disallowed by the Ld. AO and confirmed at first appeal stage. The last issue pertains to a disallowance of Rs.23,70,985/- by the Ld. AO under the head “other administrative expenses”, on the ground that during the year under consideration the assessee was not carrying on any business and hence, he could not be eligible for any expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act.
1.4 As mentioned earlier the Revenue is in appeal on account of the deletion of expenses pertaining to project expenses written off (Rs.970,88,219/-) and the assessee is in appeal on account of the two additions confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) pertaining to lease rent expenses (Rs.21,79,51,620/-) and other administrative expenses (Rs.23,70,985/ -). The grounds of appeal by both the Revenue and the Assessee effectively challenge these issues only.
2. Before us the Ld. AR argued on behalf of the assessee and briefly took us through the factual details of the case and the chronology of the events culminating in the arbitration award dated 24.09.2010 and also the fact that there was a substantial amount of Rs.72,65,05,405/-available with RCTC as a security deposit which could have been forfeited to the detriment of the assessee. The Ld. AR stated that once it was decided to totally abandon the project then the assessee was left with no option but to safeguard his financial interest and get out of the terms of the agreement dated 24.11.2007 with RCTC with as little damage to its financials as possible. It was further stated that it was not even a case where there was any chance that the said agreement could be revived in future and the assessee could continue to show the impugned expenses as would be appropriate for an ongoing business or even a business in which there was a temporary lull. The Ld. AR relied on the cases of Alcove Industries Ltd. reported in 65 taxmann.com 311 (Cal.) and Binani Cement Ltd. reported in 60 taxmann.com 384 (Cal.), to canvass the point that once a business was terminated or abandoned then the expenses of the nature under consideration in the present adjudication would be allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of Indo Rama Synthesis (I) Ltd. reported in 333 ITR 18 (Del.) to canvass the point that the lease rent expenses of Rs.21,79,51,620/- were purely revenue expenses allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. Regarding the administrative expenses (Rs.23,70,985/-), it was averred that the assessee company had considerable statutory liabilities as long as it was not wound up and would be required to pay certain amounts for legal and professional fees, audit fees, rates and taxes, office maintenance, bank charges & unrealized exchange difference; as has been done by the assessee. It was stated that these were broadly the head of expenses which the Ld. AO has treated as non-business in nature.
2.1 Ld. DR supported the Ld. AO’s findings and the findings of CIT(A) regarding lease rent expenses and other administrative expenses. The Ld. DR pointed out that the assessee had claimed project expenses written off and lease rent expenses on the same logic, that of abandonment of the project under consideration and the Ld. CIT(A) has contradicted himself when he has allowed relief under project expenses written off but has confirmed lease rent expenses. Incidentally the Ld. DR also relied on the case of Indo Rama Synthesis (supra).
3. We have gone through the records before us, perused the orders of the authorities below and heard the Ld. AR/DR. What is not in doubt is that the project with M/s RCTC has been conclusively abandoned by the assessee. Accordingly, there is no way in which expenses could continue to be capitalized. We find that the cases of Binani Cement Limited (supra) and Alcove Industries Ltd. (supra) would squarely decide the issue in favour of the assessee as through these case laws the point that has been established is that in situations where projects have been abandoned then the project related expenses have to be treated as revenue expenditure in the year in which such a decision is taken. Both these case laws are virtually on identical facts as compared to the present matter and thus, we support the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of his decision to delete the addition of Rs.970,88,219/- under project expenses written off and on the same reasoning do not support the confirmation of addition of Rs.21,79,51,620/- under lease rent expenses. As a result, while the Revenue fails with respect to the amount of Rs.970,88,219/-, the assessee succeeds with respect to the amount of Rs.21,79,51,620/- under lease rent expenses written off. We find that the case of Indo Rama Synthesis (supra) actually supports the assessee’s case whereby in this case the abandoned project due to non-procurement of land from the Government of Karnataka resulted in project related expenses being allowed as revenue expenditure.
3.1 Regarding the administrative expenses disallowed by the Ld. AO and affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) it deserves to be held that as long as the assessee company existed in the eyes of law then there would be statutory liabilities which would need to be fulfilled. We find that the expenses claimed under the broad head of administrative expenses pertain to routine expenses required to maintain the assessee company. Accordingly, we do not find it fit to support the Ld. CIT(A)’s actions in disallowing the impugned amounts. The assessee succeeds in this regard.
4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2026
Author Bio
