2006 (12) TMI 135 - HC - Income Tax

Expenditure on purchase of motors and certain other items of machinery - AO rejected the claim for treating the said amount as revenue expenditure on the ground that the items purchased were not spare parts but independent items - Plea of the assessee that most of the items purchased were electric motors for replacement of existing machinery, was upheld. The Tribunal affirmed the said order and held that occasional replacements were necessary having regard to the machinery installed - Tribunal was right in law in allowing expenditure in the machinery repairs account as revenue expenditure

Summary

Issues:

1. Determining whether expenditure on purchase of motors and other items should be treated as revenue or capital expenditure.

Analysis:

The primary issue in this case was to decide whether the expenditure of Rs. 73,180 incurred by the assessee on the purchase of motors and certain other items should be classified as revenue or capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer initially rejected the claim, arguing that the items purchased were not spare parts but independent items, thus constituting capital expenditure. However, the assessee contended that most of the items purchased were electric motors for replacement of existing machinery. Upon appeal, it was upheld that occasional replacements were necessary considering the machinery installed, leading to the Tribunal affirming this decision.

The court referred to the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT to determine whether an expenditure should be categorized as revenue or capital. The test highlighted various principles, including the concept that outlay is considered capital when it is made for the initiation, extension, or substantial replacement of a business. Moreover, expenditure leading to the creation of an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade is also classified as capital. The court emphasized that the asset acquired must have enough durability to justify its treatment as a capital asset.

Furthermore, the court noted that replacement of small machinery is generally treated as revenue expenditure since no new asset is brought into existence. This view was supported by judgments from various High Courts and Tribunals. Citing precedents from different jurisdictions, the court concluded that the expenditure in question should be considered revenue expenditure, as no new asset was created, aligning with the principle that replacement of small machinery is typically treated as revenue expenditure.

In light of the above analysis and legal principles, the court answered the question referred against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the reference was disposed of accordingly, settling the matter regarding the classification of the expenditure on purchase of motors and other items as revenue expenditure.