2012 (6) TMI 59 - HC - Income Tax

Capital expenditure vs Revenue expenditure - expenditure on account of replacement of moulds and dies - assessee engaged in the manufacture of die-casted components for automotive manufactures having high requirement of modules - Held that - It has been factually found that the purchase of dies and moulds did not bring into existence any permanent or enduring advantage to the assessee. Due to continuous use they wear out fast and they have to be replaced frequently to ensure quality of the product. Moreover, the moulds have to be produced to suit the requirements of the particular customer and after the order is met, they become useless and ultimately have to be destroyed to prevent misuse. It is well settled that any expenditure on replacement or repairs to plant and machinery which does not bring into existence any enduring or permanent advantage in the capital field is allowable as revenue expenditure. Therefore, dies and tools were allowable as revenue expenditure.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Nature of expenditure on replacement of moulds and dies - revenue or capital expenditure.
2. Adjustability of loss from 100% export oriented unit under Section 10B against other business income.

Issue 1: Nature of expenditure on replacement of moulds and dies - revenue or capital expenditure:

The case involved appeals filed by the Revenue concerning assessment years 2000-01, 2002-03 to 2006-07 and 2008-09. The primary issue revolved around the treatment of expenditure incurred on the replacement of moulds and dies by the assessee. The Assessing Officer contended that such expenditure was capital in nature as the moulds and dies provided an enduring benefit to the assessee. He emphasized that the claim for revenue expenditure was not guided by commercial expediency. However, the CIT (Appeals) noted the consistent practice of the assessee in debiting such costs as revenue expenditure and upheld the claim based on a previous Tribunal order. The Tribunal concurred that the moulds and dies did not confer any lasting advantage as they needed frequent replacement to maintain the quality of parts, and hence, allowed the expenditure as revenue. The High Court dismissed the appeals, stating that no substantial question of law arose as the expenditure did not result in any enduring or permanent advantage and aligned with established legal principles.

Issue 2: Adjustability of loss from 100% export oriented unit under Section 10B against other business income:

In the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessee sought to adjust the loss incurred by the 100% export-oriented unit, eligible for Section 10B benefits, against other business income. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed this adjustment, citing that Section 10B exempts the source income from tax, hence the loss could not be set off against other business income. The CIT (Appeals) disagreed and allowed the adjustment, a decision upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the relevant amendment to Section 10B(1) and Circular No.7 dated 05.09.2003 issued by the CBDT, supporting the assessee's position. Consequently, the High Court rejected the revenue's appeal on this point for both years.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals related to the nature of expenditure on replacement of moulds and dies, affirming that such expenditure was revenue in nature and did not confer enduring benefits. Additionally, the Court upheld the adjustment of losses from the 100% export-oriented unit against other business income under Section 10B for the relevant assessment years.