9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 13,99,305 as capital expenditure. 2. The distinction between capital and revenue expenditure. 3. The interpretation of relevant case laws and principles. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 13,99,305 as capital expenditure: The question referred to the court was whether the Tribunal was correct in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 13,99,305 as expenses incurred in connection with the issue of fresh shares in 1967. The assessee issued 16,75,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each at a premium and claimed the expenditure as deductible. The ITO disallowed the claim, viewing the expenditure as capital in nature. The AAC upheld the ITO's order, and the Tribunal also sustained the disallowance, stating that the expenditure affected the profit-making apparatus of the company and added to its capital cost. The Tribunal noted that any alteration in or addition to the capital structure involved capital expenditure, and the assessee's admission that the expenditure reinforced the capital base on a permanent basis indicated an enduring advantage. 2. The distinction between capital and revenue expenditure: The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Coal Shipments P. Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 902, which held that an item of disbursement can be regarded as capital expenditure when it is referable to fixed capital and on revenue account when attributed to circulating capital. The Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 also observed that expenditure made to bring into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade is attributable to capital. The Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of raising share capital is immaterial, and any expenditure related to altering or adding to the existing share capital must be treated as capital expenditure. 3. The interpretation of relevant case laws and principles: The court reviewed various decisions, including the judicial Committee's observations in Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC), which discussed the distinction between capital and income. The Supreme Court's decision in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, where the expenditure for securing a loan was held as revenue expenditure, was distinguished from the present case. The court noted that the main object of the expenditure was to strengthen the capital structure, and making more funds available was incidental. The Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. [1981] 130 ITR 385, which allowed the expenditure as revenue, was not followed as it was not consistent with the Supreme Court's principles. The court concluded that the expenditure in question was capital in nature as it was intended to strengthen the capital base of the company, resulting in an enduring benefit. The Tribunal's decision to disallow the expenditure as deductible was upheld. The question posed was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue, with each party bearing its own costs.
|
