2010 (12) TMI 783 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance - Revenue or capital expenditure - assessee-company which is engaged in the business of manufacture purchase and sale of hydraulic excavators etc. filed its return of income on 30-10-2004 declaring nil income - The expenditure figure is very high but keeping in view the extent of the factory building of the assessee which is dealing with the manufacture of heavy machinery such as earth movers the expenditure is reasonable - if only a new asset is created it could be said to be a capital expenditure and it is revenue expenditure when they are expenditure is to maintain preserve and maintain already existing asset - the replacement of GC sheets and aluminium sheets is not to bring into existence any new asset or new advantage to the assessee - Held that the expenditure has to be treated as expenditure for current repairs - Decided in the favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction claimed as revenue expenditure for replacing factory roof.
2. Determination of whether the expenditure incurred is capital or revenue in nature.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-III, Bangalore, challenging the deletion of the addition made by the AO disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee for replacing the factory roof. The revenue contended that the expenditure resulted in enduring benefits and should be treated as capital expenditure. The AO allowed depreciation on the expenditure, considering it as capital in nature. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, leading to the revenue's appeal before the ITAT.

2. The assessee, engaged in the manufacture of earth movers, incurred significant expenditure to replace the damaged roof of the factory building after a hail storm. The revenue argued that the repairs and renovation should be treated as capital expenditure based on the enduring benefit principle. The assessee contended that the expenditure was necessary to continue regular business operations and should be considered revenue expenditure. The ITAT analyzed the nature of the expenditure in light of relevant legal precedents.

3. The ITAT considered the extent of the damage caused by the hail storm and the necessity of maintaining a proper roof for the business operations of the assessee. Referring to the decision in CIT vs. Saravana Spinning Mills P Ltd., the ITAT emphasized that expenditure for repairs aims to preserve and maintain existing assets, not to create new assets or advantages. The replacement of old asbestos sheets with new materials was deemed essential for the assessee to continue its business operations, indicating revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure.

4. Based on the analysis of the facts and legal principles, the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the expenditure as revenue expenditure for current repairs. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining existing assets for business continuity and distinguished between capital and revenue expenditure based on the nature of the benefit derived from the expenditure.

5. The ITAT's decision clarified the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure in the context of repairs and maintenance, emphasizing the preservation of existing assets and the necessity of expenditure for ongoing business operations. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised by the revenue and the assessee, ultimately affirming the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of treating the expenditure as revenue in nature.