2010 (3) TMI 471 - HC - Income Tax

Capital or revenue expenditure- The assessee incurred expenditure in connection with load extension and purchase of distribution panel and claimed deduction of it. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim but the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal allowed it. Held that- the expenditure had been incurred in the ordinary course of business. Tribunal found that no assets of enduring nature come into existence by the expenditure. Thus the expenditure is deductible.

Summary

Issues:
1. Late deposit of employees' contribution to PF
2. Late deposit of employer's contribution to PF and administration charges
3. Expenditure incurred in connection with load extension and purchase of distribution panel

Analysis:

Late deposit of employees' contribution to PF:
The Revenue challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs. 13,01,730 made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue argued that the payments made beyond the due dates were not allowable under section 36(1)(va) and should be treated as income under section 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the Revenue decided not to press this issue based on a judgment of the Supreme Court. Consequently, this issue was decided against the Revenue in favor of the assessee-respondent.

Late deposit of employer's contribution to PF and administration charges:
Similarly, the Revenue contested the deletion of the addition of Rs. 12,86,353 made by the Assessing Officer for late deposit of the employer's contribution to PF and administration charges. The Revenue argued that the payments were not made within the prescribed due dates. However, like the previous issue, the Revenue chose not to press this matter due to the Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, this issue was also decided against the Revenue in favor of the assessee-respondent.

Expenditure incurred in connection with load extension and purchase of distribution panel:
Regarding the expenditure of Rs. 1,22,964 incurred in connection with load extension and purchase of a distribution panel, the Revenue contended that it should be treated as capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure. The Revenue argued that the benefits from these expenditures were of enduring nature and should be capitalized. However, both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered the expenditure as revenue expenditure since it was incurred in the ordinary course of business and did not result in the creation of any enduring asset. The Tribunal also upheld this view. The High Court, after considering the facts, concluded that the nature of expenditure, whether capital or revenue, is a question of fact. The court found no legal infirmity in the findings that supported the expenditure being treated as revenue expenditure. Consequently, this issue was also decided against the Revenue by upholding the Tribunal's order.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions made by the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the late deposits and the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee.