2009 (4) TMI 34 - HC - Income Tax

Whether Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure on renting and maintaining a guest house is allowable as business expenditure in view of decision of Supreme Court in the case of Britannai Industries Ltd., this question is answered in favour of the revenue - Whether Tribunal was right in excluding sales tax and excise duty from the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of benefit u/s 80HHC Held, yes - Whether Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the amounts spent on replacement of machinery and purchase of templates as revenue expenditure replacement of assets without increasing the production capacity would amount to revenue expenditure but as there is no material regarding the production capacity remaining constant even after replacement, matter require to be remitted back to the Commissioner of Appeals

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of expenditure on renting and maintaining a guest house as a business expenditure.
2. Exclusion of sales tax and excise duty from total turnover for calculation of benefit u/s 80HHC.
3. Allowance of deduction for amounts spent on replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure.
4. Allowance of deduction for amounts spent on purchase of templates as revenue expenditure.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Allowability of guest house expenditure:
The High Court considered whether expenditure on renting and maintaining a guest house is allowable as a business expenditure. Referring to relevant case law, the Court noted that the intention of the Legislature was to exclude expenses towards rents, repairs, and maintenance of premises used as a guest house from deduction. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the Court ruled in favor of the revenue, stating that the literal interpretation of the statute supports disallowing such expenses as business expenditure.

Issue 2 - Exclusion of sales tax and excise duty from turnover calculation:
Regarding the exclusion of sales tax and excise duty from the total turnover for the purpose of calculating benefits under section 80HHC, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in a relevant case. The Court emphasized that the formula in section 80HHC aims to disallow part of the concession when deductions claimed do not relate to exports. By interpreting the words "total turnover" in a schematic manner, the Court concluded that excise duty and sales tax cannot form part of the total turnover under section 80HHC.

Issue 3 & 4 - Deduction for replacement of machinery and purchase of templates:
The Court addressed the allowance of deductions for amounts spent on replacement of machinery and purchase of templates as revenue expenditure. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the Court highlighted the argument that replacement of assets without increasing production capacity amounts to revenue expenditure. However, due to insufficient evidence regarding production capacity remaining constant after replacement, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals for reconsideration, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a relevant case. The Court emphasized the need to re-examine the issue based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the appeals by ruling on each issue in accordance with relevant legal interpretations and precedents, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and judicial decisions in determining the tax implications of various expenditures and turnover calculations.