9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the question of whether the expenditure incurred for replacing machinery of United Vegetable Mfrs. Ltd. is a capital or revenue expenditure for the assessment year 1972-73. Facts and Decision: The assessee leased a factory and was obligated to repair or replace any machinery during the lease period. The lessor terminated the lease, leading to a dispute settled by arbitration where the assessee paid outstanding rent and surrendered machinery for replacement. The Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed the deduction claim. The Tribunal, however, allowed the deduction. The High Court analyzed various legal precedents and held that the replacement expenditure was revenue in nature, not capital. The expenditure was necessary to maintain the machinery during the lease, benefiting the lessor, and did not result in any enduring improvement to the factory. Therefore, the expenditure was held to be a legitimate charge against the income. Legal Precedents: The judgment referred to the case of CIT v. Kalinga Otto (P.) Ltd., where expenditure on furniture and fixtures was considered revenue in nature as it was necessary for the performance of a contract. It also cited the case of Allied Metal Products v. CIT, where extensive repairs by a lessee were treated as revenue expenditure. Additionally, the case of Girdhari Dass and Sons v. CIT was referenced, stating that expenditure by a tenant on rented premises for renovation is typically revenue in nature. Conclusion: The High Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction claim for the expenditure incurred in replacing the damaged machinery. The judgment emphasized that the replacement was necessary to fulfill the lease obligations and maintain the machinery during the lease period, making it a revenue expenditure. No costs were awarded in the case. Separate Judgment: Judge Yusuf agreed with the decision.
|
