2007 (6) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

Capital or Revenue expenditure AO contended that expenditure incurred by the assessee for starting a new unit is of capital nature but as per assessee it is revenue expenditure Held that AO contention was not correct and allow assessee appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred in setting up a new factory at Pondicherry is revenue or capital in nature.
2. Whether the new unit at Pondicherry is an extension of the existing business.
3. Whether the expenditure on reconditioning machinery is revenue or capital expenditure.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The assessee claimed the entire expenditure as revenue, but the assessing officer treated it as capital expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal held the expenses as revenue. The crucial issue was whether the industry at Pondicherry was an extension of existing units or a new unit. The Court found that the products manufactured were similar, indicating an extension rather than a new business. Citing various judgments, the Court concluded that the expenditure was revenue in nature and deductible.

Issue 2:
The question was whether the new unit at Pondicherry was an extension of the existing business. Both appellate authorities found that while the products differed, they were still steering gears. The Court determined that the change in manufacturing process did not constitute a new product, supporting the extension argument. Citing legal precedents, the Court held that the Pondicherry unit was an extension of existing units, making the expenditure revenue in nature.

Issue 3:
Regarding the reconditioning of machinery, the assessing officer treated it as capital expenditure, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal considered it revenue expenditure. The Court referred to legal decisions stating that if reconditioning is to maintain existing assets without creating new advantages, it is revenue expenditure. Citing relevant judgments, the Court concluded that the reconditioning expenditure was revenue in character and thus deductible.

In summary, the Court dismissed the tax case appeals as no substantial questions of law arose for consideration in the issues discussed. The judgments were based on the nature of the expenditure, the extension of the business, and the reconditioning of machinery, all of which were found to be revenue in nature and therefore deductible.