9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Whether the amount of Rs. 58,164 is an allowable business deduction as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.
Summary: The High Court of Gujarat considered a case where an assessee-company claimed expenses of Rs. 58,164 as revenue expenses for the assessment year 1968-69, which included the initial cost of underground electric cables to replace old overhead wiring causing issues. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the claim, treating it as capital expenditure, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention that it was revenue expenditure. The Revenue appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which also upheld the view that the expenditure was revenue in nature. The Revenue then sought a reference to the High Court to determine the allowability of the deduction. The Revenue argued that the replacement of overhead electric wires with underground cables changed the nature of the capital asset, resulting in an enduring advantage not akin to current repairs. Citing legal principles from previous cases, the Revenue contended that substantial replacement of a business asset constitutes capital expenditure, unless proven to be current repairs based on factual analysis. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, considering factors like the extent of replacement and business necessity, concluded that the expenditure was in the nature of current repairs. The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly appreciated the nature of the expenditure and the applicable principles in determining revenue versus capital expenditure. Despite the replacement of capital assets, the expenditure on underground cables was deemed revenue in nature, not capital. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of Rs. 58,164 as a business expense. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
