9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the nature of expenses incurred by a company in the aluminium industry for prospecting bauxite mines and training its employees, determining whether these expenses qualify as revenue or capital expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Prospecting and Investigating Bauxite Mines: The High Court considered the expenditure of Rs. 2,15,314 for prospecting bauxite mines by the company. The Tribunal held that this expense was revenue expenditure as it was linked to the production process and aimed at earning profits. The Court agreed that the expenditure was not incurred to obtain an enduring asset but rather to enable the company to prospect and search for its stock-in-trade, bauxite, necessary for aluminium production. Therefore, it was deemed allowable as revenue expenditure, not capital expense. Training Expenses for Employees: Regarding the expense of Rs. 7,16,916 for training 28 employees in the U.S.A., the Court analyzed whether this was capital or revenue expenditure. The Tribunal found that the training was essential for the efficient operation of the factory and directly connected to profit-making. The Court concurred, stating that the training aimed at achieving better profits through efficient factory operation, making it a revenue expenditure. The Court emphasized that the expense was not for creating an enduring asset but for enhancing business operations. The Tribunal's distinction between pre-production and post-production stage expenses was deemed irrelevant. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing both the prospecting and training expenses as revenue deductions under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Separate Judgment by Mukul Gopal Mukherji J.: Justice Mukul Gopal Mukherji concurred with the decision, aligning with the Chief Justice's analysis and ruling in favor of the assessee on both issues.
|
