2008 (8) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee paid sum of Rs 10, 64, 930/- to the State Electricity Board for installing the transformer and LT Lines for supply of electricity to its factory - though the assessee had spent some amount towards transformer and LT Lines ownership of the same did not belong to the assessee but belonged to the State Electricity Board and therefore the benefit that the assessee got was of a commercial nature and was in the nature of a business advantage- hence these expenses are revenue expenditure

Summary

Issues:
1. Nature of expenditure - Revenue or Capital?

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the nature of expenditure incurred by the assessee in the assessment year 2001-02. The question at hand was whether the sum paid by the assessee to the State Electricity Board for installing a transformer and Low Tension Lines was of a revenue nature or a capital nature. The Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) considered it as capital expenditure, while the Tribunal deemed it as revenue expenditure based on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Saw Pipes Limited.

In the Saw Pipes Limited case, the court analyzed a similar scenario where the assessee had paid for setting up service lines for electricity supply, but the ownership of the cables remained with the electricity board. The court held that if an expenditure merely facilitates trading operations or enhances business efficiency without affecting fixed capital, it should be treated as revenue expenditure. The court concluded that the benefit obtained by the assessee was commercial in nature and provided a business advantage, hence qualifying as revenue expenditure.

Applying the principles established in the Saw Pipes Limited case to the present matter, where the assessee paid for installing the transformer and LT Lines but did not acquire ownership of the equipment, the court found that the expenditure was revenue in nature. Since the fixed capital of the assessee remained untouched and the ownership of the assets belonged to the State Electricity Board, the expenditure was akin to a business advantage and not a capital investment. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and dismissed the appeal.