9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on designs and development of tools is of capital or revenue nature. 2. Whether the expenditure can be allowed u/s 35AB of the Income Tax Act. Summary: Issue 1: Nature of Expenditure (Capital vs. Revenue) The Revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 4,11,000 by the CIT(A), which was initially added by the Assessing Officer as capital expenditure. The assessee had debited Rs. 5,48,000 to the profit and loss account under "research and development expenses" and claimed it as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer treated it as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation of Rs. 1,37,000, thus reducing the addition to Rs. 4,11,000. The CIT(A) relied on the Jaipur Bench ITAT decision in ITO v. Aravali Swachalit Vahan (P.) Ltd. and the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in CIT v. Praga Tools Ltd., concluding the expenditure was revenue in nature. The Revenue contended that the expenditure provided an enduring benefit and should be treated as capital expenditure, citing several judgments including Jonas Woodhead & Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT and Arvind Mills Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal examined the facts and noted that the expenditure was for improving existing products and not for setting up a new unit or manufacturing a new product. It referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Empire Jute Co. Ltd v. CIT, which stated that expenditure facilitating business operations without touching fixed capital is revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also considered rapid technological advancements, which make enduring benefits short-lived, as observed in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd v. CIT and Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was for improving existing products and did not result in acquiring a capital asset, thus qualifying as revenue expenditure. Issue 2: Allowability u/s 35AB The assessee did not initially claim the deduction u/s 35AB but under section 37. The Tribunal noted that section 35AB applies to lump sum payments for acquiring know-how, which should be spread over six years. The Tribunal referenced the Wellman Incandescent India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT case, which clarified that section 35AB is enabling and applies to capital expenditure. Since the expenditure was for updating existing know-how, it did not fall under capital expenditure, and section 35AB was not applicable. Conclusion The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for consultancy charges and research and development expenses for modifying existing automobile components was revenue in nature. It did not relate to setting up a new business or acquiring a capital asset. Consequently, the expenditure was allowable u/s 37 of the Act, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
