9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure on installing a new cement mill can be regarded as "current repairs" u/s 31(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the subsidy received should be reduced from the cost of assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation. 3. Whether the guarantee commission paid by the assessee is a revenue expenditure. Summary: Issue 1: Expenditure on Installing a New Cement Mill as "Current Repairs" u/s 31(i) The principal question was whether the sum of Rs.5,31,55,319 invested in installing a new "Combidan Cement Mill" in 1985 could be claimed as a deduction for "repairs" u/s 31(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee treated this investment as "investment on capital equipment" in its books. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, noting that the new mill provided an enduring advantage and was a capital asset. The Commissioner upheld this view. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim, stating that the replacement did not increase the plant's capacity and thus amounted to repair. The High Court disagreed, emphasizing that "repair" implies preserving an existing asset, not creating a new one. The court concluded that the installation of the new mill was a capital expenditure, not a repair, and ruled in favor of the Revenue. Issue 2: Subsidy and Depreciation The question was whether the subsidy received should be reduced from the cost of assets for allowing depreciation. The High Court answered in favor of the assessee, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 830, which held that such subsidies should not be deducted from the cost of assets for depreciation purposes. Issue 3: Guarantee Commission as Revenue Expenditure The final issue was whether the guarantee commission paid by the assessee is a revenue expenditure. The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Sivakami Mills Ltd. [1997] 227 ITR 465, which classified such expenditure as revenue in nature.
|
