1996 (3) TMI 89 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure.
2. Whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Capital Expenditure vs. Revenue Expenditure
The primary issue was whether the expenditure of Rs. 40,388 incurred by the assessee for constructing roads, wells, and pipelines should be classified as capital or revenue expenditure. The assessee, a public limited company, had formulated a scheme to provide housing for its employees and had acquired land for this purpose. The land was divided into plots and sold to employees, with the company advancing money for the purchase and construction of houses. The company also incurred expenses for infrastructure like roads and wells, which were later handed over to the Puthusseri Panchayat.

The assessing authority disallowed the deduction, treating the expenditure as capital in nature. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that since the land and infrastructure did not belong to the assessee, the expenditure did not result in the acquisition of any asset of enduring value and should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on precedents from the Madras High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that expenditure incurred primarily for employee welfare is not capital expenditure.

Issue 2: Expenditure Incurred for Business Purposes u/s 37
The second issue was whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140, noted that the expression "for the purpose of the business" is broader than "for the purpose of earning profits." It includes expenditures related to the rationalization of administration, modernization, and employee welfare, among others.

The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was incurred as part of a scheme to provide housing for employees, which is incidental to the carrying on of the business. Therefore, it was an allowable deduction.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was revenue in nature and was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. The question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.