9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of expenditure on repairs as capital or revenue expenditure. 2. Disallowance of interest u/s 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act. Summary: Issue 1: Treatment of expenditure on repairs as capital or revenue expenditure The assessee-company, engaged in the manufacture of round bars (TMT Bars), declared a business income of Rs. 51,54,180/- and book profit of Rs. 2.05 crores for the assessment year 2005-2006. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a deduction of Rs. 58,05,278/- claimed by the assessee for the replacement of chilled rolls, fire bricks, pedestal fans, exhaust fans, air-filter units, and cable lines, treating them as capital expenditure. The AO allowed depreciation instead, citing that these expenditures provided an enduring benefit and could not be treated as 'current repairs'. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), arguing that these expenditures were revenue in nature, incurred frequently, and necessary for the continuous manufacturing process. The CIT(A) accepted this contention, directing the AO to delete the addition, stating that the expenditures were mere replacements and not for bringing any new asset into existence. The Revenue appealed to the ITAT, referencing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 201, arguing that the replacements provided an enduring benefit and should be treated as capital expenditure. The ITAT, however, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the replacements were part of the continuous manufacturing process, did not enhance production capacity, and were treated as revenue expenditure in previous years. Therefore, the expenditure was rightly treated as revenue in nature u/s 37 of the Act. Issue 2: Disallowance of interest u/s 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act The AO disallowed Rs. 6,22,902/- of interest paid by the assessee on loans from relatives and outsiders at 18% p.a., considering 12% p.a. as reasonable, invoking Section 40A(2) of the Act. The assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the loans were unsecured, unlike bank loans which require security, justifying the higher interest rate. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the bank rates were not comparable to open market rates and that the assessee paid similar interest rates to both relatives and outsiders. The Revenue appealed, arguing that substantial amounts were borrowed from directors and relatives, and the CIT(A) wrongly concluded that directors were not relatives. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that interest paid on unsecured loans to outsiders at similar rates was accepted by the AO, and thus, interest paid to relatives at 18% could not be deemed excessive or unreasonable. Consequently, the disallowance was not justified. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The expenditure on repairs was treated as revenue in nature, and the disallowance of interest u/s 40A(2) was deleted. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 17.12.2009.
|
