2021 (12) TMI 727 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of expenditure - Addition of Net Present Value - treating the Net Present Value as revenue expenses whereas true nature is capital expenditure - HELD THAT - Substantial questions of law were considered by this Court in the case of group company of the respondent/assessee in dictum in Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. 1990 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT is squarely applicable in the present case. This is not a case where the assessee, upon payment of the NPV, obtaind a fresh right to undertake any business. That right of the assessee was covered by the licence previously granted in its favour by the State of Odisha. The NPV payment is a king of a compensation for using forest land for non-forest purpose pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court. The payment of the NPV in this case, like in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd., has to be regarded as a revenue expenditure in accordance with the ration in the Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. case, since it was a one-time payment made to remove an obstacle from the path of the assessee carrying on its business operations. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the deletion of addition of Net Present Value as revenue expenses instead of capital expenditure is justified?
2. Whether the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in specific cases was appropriately considered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal?

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the categorization of the Net Present Value (NPV) as either revenue expenses or capital expenditure. The Revenue contended that the NPV should be treated as capital expenditure, contrary to the Tribunal's decision. The High Court referred to a similar case involving Bikaner Gypsum Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that expenses incurred to remove obstacles for carrying on business operations should be considered as revenue expenditure. The Court emphasized that the NPV payment was akin to compensation for using forest land for non-forest purposes, aligning with the Bikaner Gypsum case. It was noted that the NPV payment did not grant a new business right but facilitated existing operations, similar to the circumstances in Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. The Court differentiated this case from R.B. Seth Moolchand Sugachand, where a fee was paid to obtain a prospecting license, indicating a distinction in the nature of expenses incurred.

2. The second issue pertains to the consideration of specific Supreme Court decisions by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Bikaner Gypsum case, emphasizing the distinction between expenses incurred to assert new rights versus those incurred to facilitate existing operations. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the Supreme Court's interpretation of revenue versus capital expenditure in similar contexts. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing the applicability of the Bikaner Gypsum case to the current scenario. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, with the substantial questions of law answered against the Revenue.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment reaffirmed the principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the classification of expenses as revenue or capital in the context of business operations. The decision underscored the importance of considering the nature of expenses in relation to existing business rights and operational facilitation, as exemplified in the Bikaner Gypsum case. The judgment provided clarity on the treatment of NPV payments and upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing consistency with established legal precedents.