2009 (8) TMI 765 - HC - Income Tax

Capital or Revenue expenditure As per the case of the Gauhati High Court which is reported as Deputy CIT v. Assam Asbestos Ltd. 2003 -TMI - 11709 - GAUHATI High Court - Expenses incurred on preparation of the feasibility report, same line of business, is treated as revenue expenditure - Appeal is dismissed in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Whether the expenses on new project development are allowable as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Expenditure:
The primary issue is whether the expenses incurred for the preparation of feasibility reports for new projects, which were ultimately abandoned, should be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The assessee argued that the expenses were for business expansion and should be treated as revenue expenditure, whereas the Revenue contended that these were capital expenditures aimed at creating new assets.

2. Facts and Circumstances:
- The assessee was already in the business of running cinemas and aimed to expand by converting Savitri Cinema into a multiplex and taking over Priya Cinema for a similar conversion.
- Payments were made to architects and consultants for feasibility studies, but both projects were abandoned due to financial and technical non-viability.
- The key aspects noted were that the expenditure on feasibility reports was undisputed, the projects were abandoned, the assessee was already in the business, and no new capital asset came into existence.

3. Legal Precedents and Tests:
- The court referenced the case of Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT, which discussed the test of "enduring benefit" to determine whether an expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. The court noted that if the expenditure is made with a view to bringing an asset or advantage into existence, it is generally treated as capital expenditure, even if the project does not materialize.
- However, in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, it was held that not every advantage of enduring nature is capital; it depends on whether the advantage is in the capital field or merely facilitates the assessee's trading operations.

4. Distinguishing Factors:
- The court distinguished the current case from Triveni Engineering Works Ltd., as the latter involved starting a new line of business, whereas the current case involved expanding the existing business.
- Reference was also made to CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. (No. 3), where expenses for expansion within the same business were treated as revenue expenditure due to unity of control and common fund.

5. Conclusion:
- The court concluded that the expenses were incurred for the same business and were aimed at expansion, not starting a new business. Since no new asset came into existence, the expenditure should be treated as revenue expenditure.
- Both conditions were satisfied: the feasibility study was for the existing business with common administration and fund, and the study was abandoned without creating any new asset.

6. Supporting Judgments:
- The court cited similar judgments from other High Courts, such as Deputy CIT v. Assam Asbestos Ltd. and Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd. (No. 2) v. CIT, where expenses for feasibility reports in the same line of business were treated as revenue expenditure.

Final Judgment:
- The court answered the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue, and dismissed the appeal, thereby allowing the expenses as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.