2007 (1) TMI 101 - HC - Income Tax

Service charges paid by assessee to Electricity board for laying the service line for 4th unit AO held that benefit derived by assessee was of an enduring nature so it is capital expenditure Setting 4th unit is extension of existing business, not start of new business - held that service lines didn t belong to assessee but to Electricity board & were laid to enable assessee to conduct its business more efficiently benefits are of commercial nature so they are revenue expenditure

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deletion of interest under section 234B
2. Nature of expenditure - Revenue or capital in relation to laying service lines for electricity supply

Issue 1: Interpretation of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deletion of interest under section 234B:
The High Court addressed the first issue concerning the interpretation of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court framed a substantial question of law regarding the correctness of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision in deleting interest under section 234B of the Act. The court noted that the first issue did not face contestation from the respondent's counsel as similar questions had been framed in previous cases. Therefore, the court focused on determining the correctness of the Tribunal's decision in this regard.

Issue 2: Nature of expenditure - Revenue or capital in relation to laying service lines for electricity supply:
The second issue pertained to the nature of expenditure incurred by the assessee in laying service lines for electricity supply to its fourth unit. The Assessing Officer contended that the expenditure was of an enduring nature and thus constituted a capital expenditure. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to the appeal before the High Court. The court analyzed past judgments, such as Hindustan Times Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd., to determine the nature of the advantage gained by the assessee from the expenditure. The court emphasized that if the advantage facilitated the assessee's trading operations or enhanced business efficiency without affecting fixed capital, the expenditure could be considered revenue in nature. By applying these principles, the court concluded that the expenditure on laying service lines was revenue expenditure, as it aimed to enable the assessee to conduct business more efficiently without acquiring a capital asset. Additionally, the court clarified that the establishment of the fourth unit was an extension of the assessee's existing business, aligning with precedents set by the Supreme Court and previous judgments.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal regarding the second issue, affirming that no substantial question of law arose. The court directed the filing of paper books concerning the first issue, the only substantial question of law, in accordance with the High Court Rules.