2024 (3) TMI 1205 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of expenses - expenses on repairs and maintenance of stores and spares - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT - The Division Bench of this Court in 2019 (8) TMI 1347 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT dismissed the appeal of the Revenue relying on an order of the Division Bench in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. 2023 (4) TMI 334 - ITAT AHMEDABAD as held from the perusal of the documents, it can be seen that these expenditures were not totally on the replacement but replacement of part of machinery/plant which in totality cannot be treated at par with the repairs and maintenance that of entire Plant Machinery. The pipelines and duel fuel burner system are forming some part of entire plant and machinery and both these parts do not function independently or used independently for the projects of the assessee company. Thus, the CIT(A) was not right in confirming the addition. In fact, these expenditures are revenue in nature. Disallowance u/s 37(1) - expenses being contribution /donation to a trust, though the same is devoid of any business expediency? - HELD THAT - The Division Bench of this Court in 2019 (8) TMI 1347 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT held that Agro Products of the assessee company are sold under the brand name Sardar which is very popular amongst the farming community since more than four decades. It was an apprehension of the assessee that the construction of a statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Paltel would significantly enhance the value of the brand name under which the assessee carries on its business. This would help enhance sales as well as exports of the company s agro products and would as a corollary enhance the brand value of other products of the company. Thus, the contention of the Ld. AR that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business on account of commercial expediency and accordingly is allowable u/s 37 of the Act, appears to be genuine. Further, it appears that the funding was for State Government. The decision of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilisers Co Ltd. (supra) under identical facts held that, the said expenditures were allowed related to deduction under Section 37 Expenditure written off by the assessee - HED THAT - ADMIT Only on substantial question of law-(C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law and on facts in holding that the expenditure written off by the assessee has to be considered as business revenue expenditure without appreciating the fact that expenses incurred for establishing a new project will remain capital expenditure in nature even if these projects did not materialize and hence, cannot be allowed as business expenditure under section 37 of the Act?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenses on repairs and maintenance as capital expenditure.
2. Disallowance of donation to a trust under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Treatment of expenditure written off for establishing a new project as business revenue expenditure.

Summary:

Issue (A): Disallowance of Expenses on Repairs and Maintenance as Capital Expenditure

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and selling fertilizers and chemicals, had debited Rs. 6436.47 lacs in the P&L account under repairs and maintenance. The assessing officer disallowed Rs. 1,06,25,294/- as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) partially upheld this, confirming the addition for the replacement of a water pipeline and purchase of a dual fuel burner system, citing the Supreme Court decision in Sarvana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. However, the Appellate Tribunal reversed this, noting that these expenditures were for parts of machinery that do not function independently and should be treated as revenue in nature. The High Court dismissed the appeal on this question, agreeing with the Tribunal's view.

Issue (B): Disallowance of Donation to a Trust Under Section 37(1)

The assessee claimed a Rs. 10 crore donation to Sardar Vallabhbhai Rastriya Ekta Trust as a business expense under Section 37(1), arguing it was for commercial expediency. The AO disallowed this, allowing only a 50% deduction under Section 80G. The CIT(A) upheld this, stating the donation did not directly benefit the assessee's business. However, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the deduction, noting the brand name 'Sardar' under which the assessee's products are sold and citing the Gujarat High Court decision in Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co Ltd. The High Court dismissed the appeal on this question, aligning with the Tribunal's decision.

Issue (C): Treatment of Expenditure Written Off for Establishing a New Project

The High Court admitted the appeal on this question, indicating that it requires further examination.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeal on questions (A) and (B), upholding the Appellate Tribunal's decisions. The appeal was admitted only on question (C) for further consideration.