Training Expenses on company executive revenue in nature not capital as the workforce can move out any time-ITAT
ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3400 (2020) (10) ITAT
Important case law relied upon by the parties:
ST Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd.
CIT vs. Munjal Showa Ltd.
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) in consonance with the orders passed by the DRP/TPO under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
During the year under assessment, the AO inter alia treated training expenses as capital expenditure claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure and added the same to the income of the taxpayer.
Before the Tribunal, the taxpayer contended that when the training expenses incurred by the taxpayer on imparting training to its executor is not part of the enduring benefits as the trained workforce may move out any time, it could not be treated as capital expenditure.
- Under NI Act if cheque signed by drawer is given to payee ’reverse onus clause’ u/s 139 attracted
- High Court grants bail to Income Tax Officer accused of demanding bribe of Rs. 25000/-
- ICAI bans Twelve Chartered Accountants being guilty of professional misconduct
- Cash deposit in demonetisation held exempt assessee being resident of Arunachal Pradesh
- ITAT deleted addition made on presumption – there cannot be loss in restaurant business
The assessee relied upon the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal and Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court had held that when the training of the personnel of the assessee was imperative to run the business and was in the nature of technical support to the assessee it will certainly enhance the profit of the company on which it will pay the taxes, such expenditure cannot be treated as capital in nature rather they are revenue in nature.
Following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court, the Tribunal opined that when training imparted by the taxpayer company to its executives, though increased its profitability, was not of any enduring benefit as the trained workforce can move out any time and the taxpayer company pays tax on the enhanced income on account of enhanced efficiency of its trained staff, this has to be treated as revenue in nature.
