Case Law Details
Fiserv India Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
In the present case the facts says that stamp duty was payable for the lease of a business premises at sector 62, Noida which were taken on lease from Galaxy Mercantile Ltd. The stamp duty was paid in accordance with The Stamp Duty Act 1899, being a statutory levy for registering of the lease deed. The issue is whether the stamp duty paid by the assessee for registering the lease deed, though for 10 years, is revenue expenditure or not. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Honourable Bombay High Court in CIT versus Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd (supra) wherein the assessee in that case took a land on lease for a period of 30 years and ₹ 23.31 lakhs were paid as a stamp duty in respect of deed of lease. The honourable High Court following the decision of CIT versus Cinceita private limited 137 ITR 652/10 Taxman 82 (BOM) held that the period of lease for which the property has been taken cannot be regarded as a decisive test to determine the nature of the expenditure. The honourable High Court further held that it is not disputed that the stamp duty amount has been paid on lease deed for the carrying on of the business of the assessee and therefore the amount of stamp duty paid for has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. Further, the honourable High Court relying on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Taparia Tools Ltd versus The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax 372 ITR 605 [231 taxman 5] also held that same is also not a deferred revenue expenditure. In view of this, we direct the lower authorities reversing the decision to allow the stamp duty charges of ₹ 68 lakhs paid by the assessee as an expenditure for the current year holding it to be revenue expenditure in nature allowable u/s 37 (1) of the act. Accordingly, ground number [2] of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
1. Assessee filed ITA number 5571/Del/2019 against the order of the learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals – 34, New Delhi [The ld CIT (A)] dated 22/04/ 2019 passed by him in appeal filed by the assessee before him against the order passed u/s 143 (3) of The Income Tax Act[ The Act] by the Asst Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 9 (1), New Delhi [ The ld AO ] for AY 2013-14. following grounds of appeal have been raised:-
“1. That the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) [“CIT(Appeals)”] erred on the facts and in law in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) in making a disallowance of provision for the following expenses on the ground that the same are in the nature of unascertained/contingent liability:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
