2013 (7) TMI 872 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - Expenditure on introduction of new technology - Held that - Tribunal while adjudicating the matter has also taken into consideration various case laws decided by the hon ble Supreme Court of India including Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported as 1954 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ; Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported as 1980 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ; Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1989 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court ; and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. in 2011 (8) TMI 1060 - ITAT CHENNAI . The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal after discussing the facts of the case and the aforesaid decisions of the hon ble apex court came to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on introducing the compact spinning system is revenue in nature and is thus an allowable expenditure. - Following decision of assessee s own previous case 2012 (1) TMI 103 - ITAT CHENNAI - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue appeal against order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding treatment of expenditure on new technology as revenue or capital.

Analysis:
1. The assessee, a yarn manufacturing company, filed its income tax return for AY 2008-09, declaring income under normal computation and section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of expenditure incurred on new machinery and technology. The assessee claimed this expenditure as revenue under section 37 of the Act, but the AO treated it as capital expenditure.

2. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the claim following a Tribunal order in a similar case. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the new technology introduced was not a replacement but an enhancement to existing machinery, thus requiring capitalization. The advantage gained was of enduring nature, indicating capital expenditure.

3. The authorized representative for the assessee supported the Commissioner's decision, citing the Tribunal's previous ruling that the expenditure on the new technology should be treated as revenue. The Tribunal examined the nature of the expenditure based on the process involved in the compact spinning system and concluded that it was revenue expenditure, following various Supreme Court decisions and previous Tribunal rulings.

4. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been previously adjudicated in the assessee's case for AY 2007-08, where it was held that the expenditure on the compact spinning system was revenue in nature. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the expenditure as revenue and not capital.

5. The decision was based on the detailed analysis of the technology, its impact on the manufacturing process, and the nature of the expenditure. The Tribunal's decision aligned with previous rulings and case laws, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, following the precedent set in the assessee's previous case, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the treatment of expenditure on the compact spinning system as revenue expenditure.