2010 (8) TMI 679 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance - Expenditure on replacement of machinery is revenue or capital expenditure - enduring nature of the assets or the increase in the production capacity by virtue of the replacement of machinery - matter remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to re-consider the issue as to whether the expenditure made by assessee will amount to capital expenditure or revenue expenditure based upon the materials available on record

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure on replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure.
2. Criteria for determining whether expenditure is capital or revenue in nature.
3. Presumption of facts in line with previous court decisions.
4. Parameter for determining the allowability of an item of expenditure under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the disallowance of expenditure on machinery replacement as revenue expenditure for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessing officer treated it as capital expenditure, leading to an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the claim as revenue expenditure. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision citing the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills Pvt.Ltd. The appellant raised questions regarding the Tribunal's decision, referencing relevant court judgments.

2. The issue of whether the test of enduring benefit is the sole criterion in determining capital or revenue expenditure was raised. The Full Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Bhojraj Textile Mills Limited and CIT vs. Hindustan Textiles was referenced. The court noted that similar cases had been remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for reconsideration based on the directions of the Supreme Court in previous cases.

3. The court referred to its previous judgment, where it remitted a similar matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh consideration in light of Supreme Court directions. The court held that certain questions of law raised did not require consideration, while others needed to be reviewed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the judgments of the Apex Court.

4. Consequently, the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision on whether the expenditure should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was instructed to consider the relevant Supreme Court judgments in making their determination. The court did not answer the questions of law raised due to the remittal of the matter for reconsideration. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.