1979 (1) TMI 85 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Assessment of travelling expenses claimed by a company for trips related to acquisition and launching of new ships, disallowance of expenses by Income Tax Officer (ITO) as not of revenue nature, consideration of expenses as capital expenditure, direction for appropriate depreciation by Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), appeal by department to Tribunal challenging the capital nature of expenses.

Assessment of Travelling Expenses:
The ITO disallowed travelling expenses of directors and their relations for trips related to acquiring and launching new ships, totaling Rs. 56,000, as not of revenue nature and not adding value to assets. Another expense of Rs. 1,800 under "Legal charges" was also disallowed by ITO as not a revenue expenditure.

AAC's Decision:
AAC upheld disallowance of certain expenses but directed ITO to allow appropriate depreciation for the remaining expenses amounting to Rs. 53,038, considering them as capital in nature. AAC divided expenses of Mr. T. M. Sanghavi equally for delivery of ships and added back expenses of Mr. Sanghavi and Mr. Storey to the cost of assets for depreciation.

Tribunal's Decision:
Department appealed to Tribunal, arguing that expenses were incurred after ships were ready and did not add to the cost of assets. Tribunal upheld AAC's decision, considering the expenses necessary for acquiring the ships and adding them to the cost of assets. Tribunal also upheld the treatment of legal charges as capital expenditure.

Legal Precedents:
Reference made to previous court decisions emphasizing that all expenditure related to capital assets should be included in the "actual cost" of the asset, liberally interpreting the term "actual cost." The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, considering the expenses in question as capital expenditure.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that each item of expenditure was properly scrutinized, and the correct decision was made regarding each item. The court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion that the expenses were capital in nature and should be added to the cost of assets for depreciation. The question was answered in favor of the assessee, and the Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.