2006 (2) TMI 100 - HC - Income Tax

Assessing Officer, disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of replacement of old machinery by new one on the ground that the same cannot be treated as a revenue expenditure; treated the Modvat credit relating to the replacement of machinery as capital; recalculated the benefit under section 80HHC by including the excise duty and sales tax to the total turnover and also disallowed the excess remuneration paid to the director - held that the claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed as the said replaced machinery did not bring about any asset or any distinct advantage to the assessee and no structural change was also brought in - admittedly, the Modvat credit relates to replacement of machinery. Since the cost of replacement was allowed as revenue expenditure, addition made on account of Modvat credit relating to the machinery is a revenue expenditure held that sales tax and excise duty are not to be included in the total turnover while computing the deduction under section 80HHC - It could be seen that both the authorities below had concurrently given finding that these directors have rendered services. Hence, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards the remuneration payable to the directors is not fair

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Treatment of replacement of machinery as capital or revenue expenditure.
2. Treatment of Modvat credit relating to machinery as revenue expenditure.
3. Inclusion of excise duty and sales tax in total turnover for deduction under section 80HHC.
4. Allowability of excess remuneration paid to directors as a deduction.

Issue 1: Treatment of replacement of machinery
The assessee's claim regarding the replacement of old machinery with new machinery was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, stating it cannot be treated as revenue expenditure. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the claim in favor of the assessee. The High Court held that the treatment of replacement of machinery as capital or revenue should be determined by the provisions of the Income-tax Act, not by the accounting practice of the assessee. The court referred to a previous decision and emphasized that each replaced machine could not be considered as independent, leading to the conclusion that the claim of the assessee was valid.

Issue 2: Treatment of Modvat credit
The Modvat credit relating to the replacement of machinery was considered as a revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court's decision was cited, stating that Modvat credit on unconsumed raw material does not constitute taxable income. Therefore, the addition made on account of Modvat credit relating to the machinery was deemed a revenue expenditure. The High Court upheld this view, ruling against the Revenue.

Issue 3: Inclusion of excise duty and sales tax in total turnover
The question arose whether excise duty and sales tax should be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC. The Tribunal, following a previous decision, directed the exclusion of excise duty and sales tax from the total turnover. The High Court supported this decision, stating that these components should not be included in the total turnover for calculating the deduction under section 80HHC, as they do not represent profit or business income.

Issue 4: Allowability of excess remuneration paid to directors
The Assessing Officer disallowed excess remuneration paid to the directors, leading to appeals and subsequent decisions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in favor of the assessee. The High Court noted that there was no evidence presented to show that the remuneration was excessive. As both lower authorities found that the directors had rendered services and the remuneration was reasonable, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deemed unfair. Therefore, the High Court ruled against the Revenue, stating that the excess remuneration paid to the directors was allowable as a deduction.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals, stating that no error was found in the Tribunal's orders, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The decisions on all issues were in favor of the assessee, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals.