2012 (10) TMI 892 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue or capital - expenditure incurred on installation of laser upgradation kit AO observed that in respect of the claim of assessee that it is only current repairs, it is held that as there was no replacement to any existing spare parts, therefore, it cannot be claimed as current repairs and disallowed the claim of the expenditure of assessee. - Held that - Expenditure incurred by the assessee by purchasing of upgradation kit was to carry out precision eye surgery by using advanced technology, which was the need of the time in the line of the business of the assessee - revenue in nature - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Determination of whether expenditure incurred on the installation of a laser upgradation kit is revenue expenditure or capital in nature.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) regarding the treatment of expenditure incurred on the purchase of a Zyoptic retrofit kit and other items as revenue or capital in nature for the Assessment Year 2002-03.

2. The Tribunal had remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of the expenditure. The assessee argued that the upgradation kit did not bring any enduring benefit and should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the claim, stating it was not current repairs and did not direct whether it could be allowed as business expenditure u/s.37.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) allowed the claim as business expenditure u/s.37, emphasizing that the upgradation kit enhanced the quality of treatment but did not create a separate machine. The expenditure was considered revenue in nature as it improved the performance of the existing machine for conducting eye surgeries.

4. The Revenue cited a Delhi High Court decision to argue that expenditure on reconditioning and overhauling was capital in nature. However, the Authorized Representative of the assessee supported the Commissioner's decision.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the case, noting that the upgradation was necessary due to technological advancements and enabled precision eye surgery. The Commissioner's decision to treat the expenditure as revenue was upheld, considering it a recurring necessity for the business and not creating a new asset.

6. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal confirmed that the expenditure on upgradation was a revenue expense to improve efficiency and match technological advancements. The decision of the Commissioner was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the allowance of the expenditure as business expenditure u/s.37 of the Income Tax Act.

(Order pronounced on 30.4.2012)