2012 (10) TMI 574 - HC - Income Tax

Expenditure on consultancy charges - capital v/s Revenue - Held that - As decided in Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited Versus CIT, Gujarat 1989 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT that the consistent guiding principles in matters of understanding an expenditure as capital or revenue in nature, is to find out the aim and object of the expenditure and the commercial necessities of making such an expenditure and also by considering the nature of areas which the assessee wanted to cover by the study and by making the consultancy expenditure, no hesitation in holding that the expenditure referred to above are to be treated as only revenue expenditure and not as capital expenditure - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Nature of consultancy charges expenditure - revenue or capital?
2. Enduring benefit derived from the expenditure.
3. Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Nature of Consultancy Charges Expenditure - Revenue or Capital:
The case involved an appeal for the assessment year 1996-97 where the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claim of the assessee for R & D expenses paid to a consultancy company for re-engineering. The assessee argued that the expenditure was revenue in nature, while the authorities deemed it as capital expenditure due to the enduring benefit it provided. The High Court analyzed the areas covered by the consultancy study and concluded that the expenditure was for carrying out business more efficiently and profitably, justifying its classification as business expenditure rather than capital expenditure. The Court relied on precedents like [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 to support its decision.

Enduring Benefit Derived from the Expenditure:
The High Court considered the concept of enduring benefit in relation to the consultancy charges expenditure. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted that if an expenditure facilitates trading operations or enhances business efficiency and profitability, it is considered revenue in nature, even if the advantage endures indefinitely. By applying this principle to the case at hand and examining the nature of the areas covered by the consultancy study, the Court concluded that the expenditure was revenue in nature and not capital.

Tribunal's Decision to Remand the Matter:
The Tribunal had remanded the case back to the First Appellate Authority to determine if the assessee derived enduring benefit from the expenditure. However, the High Court found no necessity for such remand as it had already established that the expenditure was revenue in nature based on the nature of the areas covered and legal precedents. Therefore, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee, and allowed the Tax Case Appeal without costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the High Court in determining the nature of the consultancy charges expenditure and the enduring benefit derived from it, ultimately leading to the decision in favor of the assessee.