9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of whether the replacement of machinery parts constitutes revenue expenditure and whether creating a new asset or advantage amounts to revenue expenditure.
Summary: The High Court of Madras heard an appeal by the Revenue against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the treatment of expenditure on machinery replacement by the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the expenditure as capital expenditure, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) later allowed it as revenue expenditure. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the first issue, the court emphasized that the classification of expenditure as capital or revenue should be based on the provisions of the Income Tax Act, not the assessee's accounting practices. The Tribunal's decision to treat the replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure was upheld, citing the precedent set in CIT v. Janakiram Mills Ltd., where it was established that the replacement of machinery constitutes revenue expenditure. In conclusion, the court found no substantial question of law to consider and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision to allow the assessee's claim for the expenditure on machinery replacement as revenue expenditure.
|
