9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of Expenditure: Whether the expenditure of Rs. 7.83 crores incurred for rectification and improvement of power lines is revenue or capital. 2. Nature of Subsidy: Whether the subsidy received by the Assessee from the Government of Andhra Pradesh is revenue or capital in nature. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Nature of Expenditure The primary issue in this case revolves around the classification of the expenditure incurred by the Assessee for rectification and improvement of power lines damaged due to a cyclone. The Assessee argued that 50% of the expenditure was on revenue account and the remaining 50% on capital account. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the entire amount, treating it as capital expenditure based on the fact that the expenditure was incurred out of a capital subsidy received from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The CIT(A) reversed the AO's decision, holding that the expenditure was in the nature of current repairs and allowable as revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) emphasized that it is immaterial to debate the source of funds used for the expenditure, as the critical factor is the nature of the expenditure itself. The CIT(A) concluded that the expenditure was for rectification and improvement of existing structures damaged by the cyclone, which does not create any new asset or confer an enduring benefit to the Assessee. Upon appeal, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the expenditure was indeed revenue in nature. The Tribunal noted that the AO had misdirected himself by disallowing the expenditure solely because it was funded by a capital subsidy. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Issue 2: Nature of Subsidy The second issue pertains to the nature of the subsidy received by the Assessee. The Revenue argued that the subsidy should be considered as revenue receipt, citing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT, which held that subsidies granted to assist in carrying out business operations are revenue receipts. The CIT(A) did not specifically address this issue, leading to a difference of opinion between the Vice President and the Accountant Member (AM) of the ITAT. The Vice President held that the subsidy was capital in nature, while the AM opined that the subsidy should be treated as revenue receipt, given that it was granted to assist in the rectification and improvement of power lines, which is a business operation. The matter was referred to a Third Member, who concurred with the AM's view. The Third Member emphasized that the purpose of the subsidy is crucial in determining its nature. Since the subsidy was granted to enable the Assessee to run its business more profitably and not for setting up the industry, it should be treated as revenue receipt. The Third Member cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT, which supports the view that subsidies given to assist in business operations are revenue in nature. Based on the majority opinion, the ITAT concluded that the subsidy received by the Assessee was a revenue receipt and allowed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Conclusion: The ITAT's final decision resulted in the following outcomes: - The expenditure of Rs. 7.83 crores incurred for rectification and improvement of power lines was held to be revenue expenditure. - The subsidy of Rs. 8.50 crores received from the Government of Andhra Pradesh was determined to be revenue receipt. The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed, with the expenditure being treated as revenue expenditure and the subsidy as revenue receipt.
|
