2012 (9) TMI 161 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance expenditure towards replacement of machinery - Revenue OR Capital - Held - As decided in CIT v. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills P. Ltd. 2009 (7) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT that the entire textile mill machinery for spinning yarn cannot be regarded as a single asset and each separate machinery was held to be an independent entity - Replacement of an old machine with a new one would constitute the bringing into existence of a new asset and not repair of the existing machine as asset gives the purchaser (assessee) an enduring benefit of better and more efficient production over a period of time. Such replacement of assets was held to be not amounting to current repairs and to be not allowed as revenue expenditure - in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee for replacement of machinery would amount to capital expenditure?
2. Whether the expenditure incurred for modernization by replacing old machinery with new machines is capital in nature?
3. Whether an expenditure reducing revenue expenditure recurring or otherwise amounts to capital expenditure?

Analysis:
1. The assessee claimed revenue expenditure towards replacement of machinery, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer as capital in nature. The first appellate authority and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Revenue appealed, questioning if the replacement expenditure should be considered capital. The Court noted the distinction between the instant case and the precedent where worn-out parts were replaced. The new machinery in this case substantially reduced manpower requirements and increased production, leading to a different conclusion.

2. The Court referred to another Supreme Court case involving a textile mill, which clarified that replacing old machinery with new ones creates a new asset, not just a repair. The enduring benefit of better production over time from the new asset was deemed not "current repairs." Applying this precedent, the Court found the replacement of machinery in the present case to be capital expenditure, contrary to the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue, setting aside the previous decisions.

3. The Court's decision was based on the principle that replacing old machinery with new ones results in the creation of a new asset with enduring benefits, qualifying as capital expenditure. The judgment emphasized that such replacements do not fall under the category of "current repairs," as they bring about improved efficiency and production over time. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee for modernization through machinery replacement was considered capital in nature, leading to the restoration of the Assessing Officer's order.