9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of whether the expenditure incurred on replacement of false ceiling should be allowed as a revenue expenditure while computing income for the assessment year 1977-78.
Summary: The case involved a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, which had to replace a false ceiling covered by hardboard with asbestos cement sheets. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner initially treated the expenditure as capital in nature, disallowing it. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the cost of replacement was allowable as revenue expenditure, citing relevant legal principles. The Department filed a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the expenditure was not capital in nature as it did not bring any new asset or enduring benefit. The Department argued that the replacement was substantial and would bring enduring benefit, thus constituting capital expenditure. The Tribunal found that the replacement did not bring any new asset or enduring advantage, leading to the conclusion that the expenditure was of revenue nature. In its analysis, the court considered various legal precedents distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure. It emphasized that the distinction depends on the facts of each case, with no conclusive tests available. The court noted that the replacement of the hardboard false ceiling with asbestos sheets did not create a new asset or enduring benefit for the assessee. Therefore, it was determined that the expenditure was of revenue nature, aligning with the Tribunal's decision. The court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion and answered the question in the affirmative, ruling against the Department.
|
