Held that the expenditure on video shooting of tourist locations for the business purposes did not give any enduring benefit to the assessee. The expenditure may be wrongly capitalised in the books of account. The Department had not shown how the video shooting expenditure with respect to the two central business of the assessee could be considered capital expenditure. There was no infirmity in the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel. Tribunal also held that the Dispute Resolution Panel had categorically held that the expenditure incurred on issue of non-convertible debentures was similar to the expenditure incurred as interest on non-convertible debentures and restricted the disallowance of such expenditure to the extent of proportionate amount invested in fixed assets not put to use during the year. The accounting treatment given by the assessee in reducing the share premium account by expenditure incurred for issue of non-convertible debenture was incorrect. (AY.2011-12)
Asst. CIT v. Alok Kumar Agrawal (2023)106 ITR 12 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Business as travel agent, tour operator and foreign exchange dealer-Expenditure on video shooting of tourist locations for business purposes-Capitalised in books of account-Allowable as revenue expenditure-Expenses on issue of non-convertible debentures capitalised in books and Not debited to profit and loss account-Debentures issued for meeting working capital requirements-Disallowance to extent of proceeds from debentures used as capital expenditure and allowing balance expenditure is held to be proper.[ S. 145 ]