2009 (1) TMI 57 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee made payments to M/s. Coopers for a study and report on reorganization of core business of assessee company tribunal has given finding of fact that study was in relation of existing business and not for producing any new parts, no technical know-how was received in respect of any manufacturing, and report affected manufacturing/selling of existing items so impugned expenses should be treated as revenue in nature these expenses are not covered u/s 35D(2), as contended by revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of expenditure as capital or revenue.
2. Applicability of Section 35(D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46(A) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Expenditure as Capital or Revenue:
The primary issue in this case was whether the expenditure incurred by the respondent-assessee for engaging M/s. Coopers and Lybrands for a system study should be classified as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concluded that the expenditure was a revenue expense. The Tribunal noted that the study conducted by M/s. Coopers and Lybrands was aimed at reorganizing the core business and improving market share and profitability, which facilitated the trading operations and enabled the company to manage and conduct its business more efficiently without affecting its fixed capital.

The Revenue's contention was that the expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure because it provided long-term benefits and involved significant costs. However, the Tribunal's findings indicated that the business had been in existence for over three decades and that the report did not provide any new technical know-how or information for producing new parts. The report merely aimed at improving the efficiency and economy of the existing business operations.

2. Applicability of Section 35(D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Revenue argued that the expenses incurred should fall under Section 35(D)(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to expenses for conducting market surveys or other surveys necessary for the business. However, the court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the engagement of M/s. Coopers and Lybrands was for conducting a market survey. The substantial questions of law framed by the assessee indicated that the report was for reorganization and improving profitability, not for conducting a market survey. Thus, the court rejected this contention.

3. Admissibility of Additional Evidence under Rule 46(A) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962:
The Revenue contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the respondent-assessee to adduce additional evidence, which was not available before the Assessing Officer. The court examined the material taken into consideration by the appellate authorities and found no merit in this argument. The court observed that the Revenue had not raised any specific challenge against the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing additional evidence. Moreover, the court noted that the material referred to by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not limited to the letter dated 23.9.1996 and included other substantial documents.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the questions of law raised by the Revenue were without merit. The court upheld the ITAT's decision that the expenditure incurred by the respondent-assessee for engaging M/s. Coopers and Lybrands was a revenue expense. The court also found no basis for the Revenue's arguments regarding the applicability of Section 35(D) and the admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46(A). The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

← Previous Next →