Section 37 – Expenditure incurred on cost of adhesive stamps for obtaining conveyance deed for assignment of receivables is allowable as the same is in connection with facilitating recovery of receivables which is a part of current asset and has been incurred for facilitating the business of the assessee

9. [2020] 120 taxmann.com 33 (Mum.)(Trib.) Demag
Delaval Industries Turbomachinery (P) Ltd. A.Y.: 2004-05 Date of order: 16^th September,
2020

Section 37 – Expenditure incurred on cost
of adhesive stamps for obtaining conveyance deed for assignment of receivables
is allowable as the same is in connection with facilitating recovery of
receivables which is a part of current asset and has been incurred for
facilitating the business of the assessee

FACTS

The assessee
acquired an industrial turbine unit of Alstom Project India Limited for a lump
sum consideration. The assessee incurred expenditure of Rs. 59,17,000 being
cost of adhesive stamp affixed on the conveyance deed for assignment of
receivables and claimed it as a deduction on the ground that it was an
expenditure in connection with the acquisition of business and is a revenue
expenditure.

The A.O. and the
CIT(A) denied the claim of the assessee on the ground that it is for
acquisition of industrial turbine unit from Alstom Project India Limited. He
held that the stamp duty is nothing but an expenditure incurred in order to
cure or complete the title to capital. Hence, it is capital expenditure.

Aggrieved, the
assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal and contended that the expenditure
in this regard has been incurred in connection with the conveyance deed of
receivables which are part of the current assets, therefore the expenditure
cannot be treated as expenditure for the purpose of acquisition of capital
assets. Expenditure was very much incurred for the purpose of the business of
the assessee and the same should be allowed as such. In this regard, reliance
was placed on the case of CIT vs. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co.
(219 ITR 521) and India Cement Ltd. vs. CIT (60 ITR 52).

HELD

The Tribunal, after going through the conveyance deed, held that the
deed involving duty of Rs. 59,17,000 was for the purpose of assignment of
receivables and that the CIT(A)’s conclusion that the expenditure is to cure
and complete the title to capital is without appreciating the facts of the
case.

The Tribunal held that this assignment is admittedly for facilitating
the business of the assessee by assigning receivables. The expenditure is in
connection with facilitating recovery of receivables which is a part of the
current assets. Hence, the expenditure in this regard cannot be said to be in
the capital field of acquiring the business. It is in fact for facilitating the
business of the assessee and in this view of the matter expenditure is
allowable as business expenditure. The ratio of the decisions in the
case of Bombay Dyeing Mfg. (Supra) and India Cements Ltd.
(Supra), relied upon on behalf of the assessee, are accordingly germane
and support the case of the assessee. The CIT(A) has been in error in holding
that the case laws are not applicable here.

The Tribunal decided this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee.