9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Capitalization of pre-production expenses for depreciation and development rebate. Analysis: In the present case, the assessee, a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of yarn, claimed to capitalize pre-production, overhead, and other expenses amounting to Rs. 2,46,830 for the assessment year 1966-67. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim, stating that the term "actual cost" should be interpreted in its ordinary meaning, encompassing only direct expenditure related to the purchase and erection of machinery or construction of the building, excluding any indirect expenses. However, on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, relying on a decision of the Calcutta High Court, held that all pre-production expenses, whether direct or indirect, associated with the purchase, supervision, or erection of machinery and building construction should be capitalized. The tribunal upheld this decision, leading to a reference question on the inclusion of indirect expenses in the cost of assets for depreciation and development rebate. The High Court referred to previous decisions, including Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. and Commissioner of Income-tax v. L. G. Balakrishnan & Bros. (P.) Ltd., which supported the capitalization of expenses necessary to bring assets into existence and operational condition. The Supreme Court, in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, endorsed this approach, emphasizing that all expenditure essential to creating and operationalizing fixed assets should be included in their actual cost. The Court highlighted that pre-production expenses related to asset creation and operational readiness must be factored into the asset's cost. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's directive to exclude only expenses not essential for asset creation and operational readiness remains valid. The Court affirmed the inclusion of all relevant pre-production expenses in the asset's actual cost, subject to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's specific instructions on the figures to be included. Consequently, the reference was technically answered in the affirmative, granting the assessee costs and counsel's fee.
|
