2015 (7) TMI 1029 - HC - Income Tax

Pre-capitalization expenses towards expansion of its business disallowed - ITAT allowed claim - Held that - As decided in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT 2007 (10) TMI 286 - DELHI HIGH COURT semingly diverse and disparate lines of business can yet be treated as part of the same business provided certain important parameters are kept in mind - that both should have common management and that the funds used for the purposes of the existing business as well as the new entity should be common - There can be no dispute that new venture was managed from common funds - This Court notices that in Jay engineering (supra) itself, the Challapalli (1974 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court), as relied upon by Revenue holding was noticed and at the same time distinguished in the light of the previous ruling in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT 1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME Court . The important point of distinction noted by the Court in Jay Engineering (supra), to say that Challapalli (supra) was inapplicable, was that in that case the assessee had borrowed considerable sums of money for installation of plant and machinery, and interest was sought to be loaded on the cost of plant and machinery. The AO had rejected the assessee s claim and held that interest was an important part of revenue expenditure and no depreciation could be claimed as was done in that case. The assessee s contention in that respect was accepted by the Supreme Court. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of pre-capitalization expenses claimed by the assessee.
2. Determination of whether the expenses are revenue or capital in nature.
3. Application of legal precedents to the case.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Pre-Capitalization Expenses:
The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision to allow the assessee's claim of &8377; 7,03,95,000/- as pre-capitalization expenses towards business expansion, which was disallowed by the AO and CIT (Appeals). The Revenue argued that the ITAT's decision was contrary to law.

Issue 2: Revenue vs. Capital Nature of Expenses:
The assessee, engaged in various businesses, sought to expand into new ventures during the relevant year. The Revenue treated the claimed expenses as capital expenditure, disallowing them. However, the ITAT held that there was interlacing of funds between existing and new ventures, leading to the expenses being treated as revenue in nature. Legal arguments were made citing precedents like Challapalli Sugar Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Food Specialities Ltd.

Issue 3: Application of Legal Precedents:
The Revenue contended that setting up a new line of business cannot be considered an expansion of the existing business, citing judgments like CIT v. Food Specialities Ltd. The assessee relied on the Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT case, emphasizing the importance of common management and common funds for treating seemingly diverse businesses as part of the same business. The Court referenced Veecumsees v. Commissioner of Income Tax and India Cements Ltd. v. CIT to support its decision.

In the final analysis, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The judgment affirmed the ITAT's decision based on the principles established in previous rulings, including the importance of common management and funds for determining the nature of expenses. The Court distinguished relevant precedents to support its conclusion that the expenses were revenue in nature.