2008 (1) TMI 313 - HC - Income Tax

Amount paid by the assessee to the State Irrigation Department being part of the cost incurred for cement lining of an irrigation canal serving sugarcane cultivators expenditure lead to increase in production of sugarcane - assessee derived benefit out of this expenditure but did not create any asset for itself hence tribunal is right in holding that the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1)

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of contribution as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:
The High Court of Kerala heard an appeal filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The primary issue was whether the contribution of Rs. 25 lakhs paid by the assessee to the State Irrigation Department for cement lining of an irrigation canal serving sugarcane cultivators is allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal considered the nature of the contribution made by the assessee, as explained in the minutes of the board meeting. It was revealed that the amount was paid to improve an irrigation canal supplying water to sugarcane cultivation areas, with the purpose of preventing water loss and ensuring better water supply for irrigation. The assessee claimed the expenditure as a business expense under section 37(1) since sugarcane was its raw material and extensive cultivation benefited the company. However, the Assessing Officer initially denied the claim, arguing it was a capital expenditure.

The first appellate authority allowed the claim, citing Supreme Court decisions and a Bombay High Court decision supporting similar claims as revenue expenditures. The Tribunal upheld this view, dismissing the Departmental appeal. The appellant's senior counsel referenced a Full Bench decision, arguing the expenditure was capital in nature. In response, the respondent's counsel highlighted that unlike the previous case, the assessee did not create any asset by contributing to the irrigation canal's improvement. The High Court agreed with the respondent, noting that while the expenditure provided benefits to the assessee indirectly by increasing sugarcane production, no direct asset was created. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1, the High Court emphasized that enduring advantages from expenditure can still be considered revenue expenditure. Drawing parallels to previous cases where contributions for public works were allowed as revenue expenditures, the High Court concluded that the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.