1993 (2) TMI 83 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the question of whether a sum paid to a company was admissible as revenue expenditure and whether legal expenses incurred for the purpose of purchasing shares in other companies were allowable.

Revenue's Question - Nature of Expenditure:
The controversy revolved around the nature of the expenditure of Rs. 3,24,179 incurred by the assessee-company, related to consultation fees paid for engineering services to a specific firm. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the deduction, deeming it as capital expenditure due to the nature of the services provided. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed 50% of the claim as a revenue deduction after examining the facts. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal later held that the entire expenditure was incurred for rationalization of administrative machinery and relocation of the factory, making it an allowable deduction. The High Court, after considering the purpose of the expenditure and the absence of enduring benefit, concluded that it was not capital expenditure but a revenue deduction, in line with established legal principles.

Assessee's Question - Legal Expenses for Share Purchase:
The assessee, without making a reference application, raised a question regarding the allowance of legal expenses of Rs. 15,029 incurred for purchasing shares in other companies. However, based on the decision in CIT v. V. Damodaran, the High Court determined that this question need not be answered as it was not raised through the proper application process. Therefore, the only question addressed was the one referred by the Revenue regarding the nature of the Rs. 3,24,179 expenditure.

Conclusion:
After analyzing the facts and the purpose behind the expenditure, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the expenditure was not of a capital nature but a revenue deduction. The Court cited established legal principles, including the decision in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT, to support its conclusion. No costs were awarded in this case.