9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 589 - AT - Income TaxNature of Expenses Revenue OR Capital Expenditure Replacement of Machinery Held that - Machinery has been replaced by the assessee to bring latest technology and for improving the efficiency of the plant and machinery - The replacement of machinery has resulted in increase in productivity as well as profits - Following CIT Vs. M/s. Mangayarkarasi Mills P.Ltd. 2009 (7) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT - expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery as capital expenditure - such expenditure is not allowable as revenue expenditure under the provisions of Sec.37 of the Act Decided against Assessee. Levy of Interest u/s 220(2) of the Act Held that - Following M/s PRECOT MERIDIAN LTD 2014 (1) TMI 104 - ITAT CHENNAI - The period specified under section 220(1) has to be taken into consideration from the date of passing of the fresh assessment order and not the earlier assessment order, which has been set aside decided in favour of Assessee. Interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act Held that - The interest u/s 234B and 234C is mandatory in nature - The interest is charged for contravening the provisions of the Act i.e. non-payment of advance tax within the stipulated time there was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) Decided against Assessee.
Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards replacement of machinery is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure? 2. Levy of interest under section 220(2) and interest under section 234 B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue 1: Expenditure on Replacement of Machinery The case involved two appeals by the assessee for the Assessment Year 1994-95 and 1999-00 against the orders of the CIT(A). The main issue was whether the expenditure on replacement of machinery should be classified as revenue or capital expenditure. The Tribunal noted that in a previous round of litigation, the issue had reached the High Court, which directed the Assessing Officer to decide based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim again, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal, considering previous decisions and the purpose of the machinery replacement, held that such expenditure is capital in nature. The replacement aimed at improving efficiency and increasing productivity, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance that such expenses are not allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. Issue 2: Levy of Interest under Section 220(2) Regarding the levy of interest under section 220(2), the Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the assessee's case where the Assessing Officer had imposed interest for a specific period. The assessee argued that interest should not be levied from the original assessment order date due to a subsequent Tribunal decision. The Tribunal disagreed with the Department's contention that interest under section 220(2) is not appealable, citing a High Court judgment. The Tribunal clarified that interest should be charged from the date of the fresh assessment order, not the original one set aside. This decision was supported by previous court rulings. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed this ground of appeal in favor of the assessee. Issue 3: Interest under Sections 234B and 234C The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) regarding interest under sections 234B and 234C, stating that such interest is mandatory for non-payment of advance tax within the specified time. Finding no fault in the CIT(A)'s order on this matter, the Tribunal dismissed the ground of appeal related to interest under sections 234B and 234C. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the assessee concerning the classification of expenditure on machinery replacement and the levy of interest under section 220(2), while dismissing the appeal related to interest under sections 234B and 234C.
|
