1995 (12) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment Year Capital Expenditure Capital Or Revenue Expenditure Depreciation And Development Rebate Foreign Exchange Law Applicable To Assessment Plant And Machinery

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order
2. Deduction of foreign exchange difference
3. Nature of payment for relocation of villagers
4. Inclusion of premium paid for leasehold rights in the cost of plant and machinery

Validity of Assessment Order:
The High Court addressed the first two questions, stating that they were covered by previous decisions in favor of the Revenue. The court cited specific cases to support its decision, affirming that the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the assessee's contentions regarding the assessment order and the deduction of foreign exchange difference.

Nature of Payment for Relocation of Villagers:
The court analyzed the payment of Rs. 8 lakhs made by the assessee to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation for relocating villagers from the leased land. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the deduction, considering it a capital expenditure. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, viewing the expenditure as necessary for removing a threat to the factory's security. The court disagreed, deeming the payment a capital expenditure to perfect the assessee's interest in the land, essential for setting up the factory.

Inclusion of Premium Paid for Leasehold Rights:
Regarding the premium paid for leasehold rights on the land where plant and machinery were installed, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision. It clarified that depreciation is not allowed on the cost of land, and the premium for leasehold rights cannot be considered part of the plant and machinery's actual cost. The court emphasized that plant and machinery costs do not include the site where they are located, affirming the Tribunal's ruling against the assessee's claim for depreciation and development rebate.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered all four questions in favor of the Revenue, affirming the decisions made by the Tribunal. The judgment highlighted the distinction between revenue and capital expenditures, emphasizing the importance of correctly categorizing expenses for tax purposes. The court provided detailed reasoning based on legal precedents to support its conclusions, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of each issue raised in the case.