By Ajay R. Singh, Advocate
CIT vs. M/s. Conde Nast (India) Pvt. Ltd. [ Income tax
Appeal no 1083 of 2014, dt : 16/12/2016 (Bombay High Court)].
[M/s. Conde Nast (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT. [ITA
No.1819/MUM/2013; Bench: SMC; dated: 04/09/2013; A Y: 2007- 2008. MUM. ITAT ]
The assessee was engaged in the business of printing,
publishing, circulating, marketing and distributing publications. During the
assessment proceeding, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed that its
business had been set up w.e.f. 20-11-2006 and expenditure incurred after
20-11-2006 had been claimed as revenue expenditure at Rs.3,56,33,431/-.The
assessee was asked to substantiate its claim with necessary evidence. After
considering various details, the AO found that the business of the assessee has
not been set up as the assessee has appointed only executives along with
editors. No issue of the magazine is published during the year. The AO found
that the magazines have been published in FY: 2007-08 relating to AY: 2008-09.
Accordingly, he held that the business was not set up in the year under
consideration. Hence, he disallowed the claim of expenditure.
The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). It was
submitted that the editor, who is at the helm of affairs in the editorial
department in publishing organisation, decides what shall and what shall not go
into his publication on the basis of what he conceives to be the publications
mission and philosophy. Thereafter the functions of the editorial as well as
the activities taken by the assessee during the year under consideration were
filed and explained before him. The Ld
CIT(A) noted that the first issue of the magazine, namely, VOGUE, published by
the assessee, came on October, 2007 and accordingly the business was set up
only on October, 2007 and not during the year under consideration. Accordingly,
the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the
AO.
The Tribunal observed that there is a well-marked distinction
between a business being set up and the commencement of the business. It is the
setting up of the business that has to be considered and not the commencement.
It is only when the business is set up that the previous year for that business
commences and expenses incurred prior to the setting up are not a permissible
deduction. It has further observed that
when the business is established and is ready to commence the business, then it
can be said that the business is set up. Before the assessee is ready to
commence business, the business is not set up. There may be an interval between
the setting up of the business and the commencement thereof and all expenses
incurred during the interval would be permissible deductions.
The Tribunal after going through the chart and various details along with supporting
evidence, observed that it is amply
proved that major activity has started during the year under consideration.
Some orders have been placed, photographer is engaged, some technical staff
were also employed, business premises has been taken from where all these
activities are conducted. Even trial production was also started. From all
these facts, it is seen that the assessee has started its activity for
publishing its magazines. The question is not generating of revenue, the
question comes for consideration as to whether any activity has been started or
not. The Tribunal relied on the decision
of HSBC Securities India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. dated 20th
November, 2001 (ITA No.3181/M/1999). The Tribunal held that the business of the assessee was set up,
therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee are allowable. However,
since the nature of expenditure was not examined therefore, to this limited
purpose the matter was remanded back to the file of the AO to examine the
genuineness of the expenditure and then allow them as per provision of law. In the
result, appeal of the assessee was allowed.
On appeal by the revenue before the High Court
it was observed that the impugned order of the Tribunal had relied on an order
of its Coordinate Bench in HSBC Securities India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
decided on 20th November, 2001 (ITA No.3181/M/1999). The impugned
order finds that the test laid down by the Tribunal in HSBC Securities (India)
Holdings (P) Ltd., to determine whether or not the Assessee’s business has been
set up, were satisfied on the present facts. It was found from the record of the High Court that the
order of the Tribunal in HSBC Securities India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., (supra)
has been accepted by the Revenue as the memo of appeal does not indicate any
challenge by the Revenue to the above order. It is also not disputed in the
memo of appeal that the order in HSBC Securities (India) Holdings (P) Ltd., (supra)
applies to the present facts. Thus, no grievance is made in respect of the
impugned order following the order of the Coordinate Bench in HSBC Securities
(India) Holdings (P) Ltd., (supra). Thus the Court held that the
question as framed did not give rise to any substantial question of law.
Accordingly, Appeal of revenue was dismissed.
