2008 (3) TMI 433 - HC - Income Tax

Capital or Revenue Expenditure The assessee was appointed as the administrator of a company and it took over the management of the business of the company. For the deprivation of its business, the company was paid a sum of Rs. 122.79 lakhs for the period from October 22, 1965 to Aug. 1976 at Rs. 11.39 lakhs per annum by the assessee. The assessee claimed this amount as revenue expenditure, but the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed it as capital expenditure. Tribunal held that it is revenue expenditure. Held that- moreover, no part of this amount of Rs. 122.79 lakhs was shown to have been intended to be being paid towards consideration for transfer of title, or property of the undertaking of the company. The expenses was deductible.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of whether the amount paid to M/s. Metal Corporation of India is a revenue expenditure.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Rajasthan High Court pertained to the classification of the amount paid to M/s. Metal Corporation of India as either a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure. The Tribunal had framed a substantial question of law regarding the nature of the payment. The key issue was whether the amount of Rs. 122.79 lakhs paid to M/s. Metal Corporation of India for a specific period and additional amounts constituted revenue expenditure.

The court examined the history of the nationalization and acquisition of M/s. Metal Corporation of India, leading to the appointment of an administrator and the subsequent involvement of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. The compensation paid to M/s. Metal Corporation of India was detailed, including amounts for management deprivation and undertaking acquisition. The Commissioner of Income-tax initially treated the entire sum as capital expenditure, but the Tribunal differentiated between capital and revenue expenditure within the total compensation amount.

The High Court analyzed the nature of the payment in question, emphasizing that the Rs. 198 lakhs for undertaking acquisition was undoubtedly capital expenditure. However, the Rs. 122.79 lakhs for management deprivation charges was considered a revenue expenditure by the Tribunal. The court agreed with this distinction, noting that Metal Corporation of India could not earn income during the period of deprivation, justifying the compensation.

Moreover, the court highlighted that the payment was not intended for the transfer of title or property of the undertaking. It reasoned that even if the acquisition had failed, Metal Corporation of India would still be entitled to compensation for deprivation, indicating the revenue nature of the amount. The judgment concluded that the Rs. 122.79 lakhs could not be categorized as capital expenditure from any perspective, affirming the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed by the High Court.