2009 (10) TMI 388 - HC - Income Tax

Cost of Assets- Where the Tribunal found that the money paid for annual maintenance contract for ten years, which was included in the invoice at the time of purchase of the equipment should be included as sale price of the said equipment. Held that- the finding of the Tribunal was a pure finding of fact. Dismissing the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of original cost for tax assessment purposes in the context of an annual maintenance contract (AMC) included in the sale price of equipment.

Analysis:
The High Court considered the appeal where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) had determined that the money paid for an annual maintenance contract (AMC) for ten years, included in the invoice at the time of purchasing equipment, should be included in the sale price of the equipment. The Revenue's counsel referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Guzdar Kajora Coal Mines Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 85 ITR 599, emphasizing that the original cost of an asset to the assessee is a factual determination based on the evidence available. The Supreme Court had previously established that the consideration or cost paid for the purchase of an asset is a crucial piece of evidence, reflecting the actual cost to the assessee. The High Court noted that the cost paid by the assessee, as reflected in the invoice, could be considered the capital cost unless there were circumstances indicating a fictitious price, fraud, collusion, or value manipulation. Since the Assessing Officer did not demonstrate any such exceptions, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's factual finding.

The Supreme Court's judgment clarified that the original cost of an asset to the assessee is a factual determination. It highlighted that the consideration or cost paid for the purchase of an asset serves as crucial evidence, indicating the actual cost to the assessee. The High Court reiterated that the cost reflected in the invoice could be treated as the capital cost unless specific circumstances such as fictitious pricing, fraud, or collusion were present. The Assessing Officer was empowered to challenge the cost in the invoice under these exceptional circumstances, which were not evident in the present case. As a result, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's factual finding, emphasizing that it was a pure finding of fact, thereby dismissing the appeal as no legal question arose for consideration.