2009 (11) TMI 65 - HC - Income Tax

Business Expenditure - In this case, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of Rs.1,15,000/- on account of installation of machinery as revenue expenditure and the said expenditure was treated as capital expenditure. CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have affirmed the finding of the Assessing Officer that the said expenditure was not on account of repair and maintenance, as claimed by the assessee, but the same was on account of installation of machinery - as per the details filed, the expenditure was charged to erection/commission head on account of multitudes supplied Rs. 1 lac and S.S. Polly baffle Type Rs. 15,000/-. It is stated that in reply, the assessee could not explain as to how the said expenditure is on account of repair and maintenance and not on account of installation of machinery. expenditure rightly disallowed decided in favor of revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Deduction claim of revenue/business expenditure on labor charges.
2. Deduction claim of business expenditure on erection and commissioning of machinery charges.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-assessee filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the ITAT's order regarding the assessment year 2005-06. The primary issue was whether the ITAT was justified in rejecting the claim of deduction for labor charges as revenue/business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed an expenditure of Rs.1,15,000 on machinery installation, treating it as capital expenditure instead of revenue. Both the CIT (A) and the ITAT upheld this decision, stating that the expenditure was for machinery installation, not repair and maintenance as claimed by the assessee. The expenditure details indicated charges for erection/commissioning of machinery, and the assessee failed to demonstrate how it was related to repair and maintenance. Consequently, the court found no substantial question of law in the ITAT's order and dismissed the appeal.

2. The second issue revolved around the deduction claim for business expenditure on erection and commissioning of machinery charges. The ITAT rejected this claim as well, based on the finding that the expenditure was related to machinery installation, not repair and maintenance. The court concurred with the CIT (A) and ITAT's factual determination, emphasizing that the expenditure details supported the conclusion that it was for machinery installation. As the appellant could not establish a connection to repair and maintenance, the court found no legal question meriting consideration. Hence, the appeal on this issue was also dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal as no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order regarding the deduction claims for labor charges and machinery installation expenditure. The court upheld the lower authorities' findings that the expenses were not related to repair and maintenance but were incurred for machinery installation, leading to the rejection of the deduction claims by the appellant-assessee.