1976 (1) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the examination and determination of the point with regard to the nature of the lump sum payment of Rs. 1,00,234, i.e., whether it was capital expenditure or revenue expenditure, when the subject-matter of the appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal did not include the contention that it was admissible as revenue expenditure ? " The relevant findings relating to the first question are : A sum of Rs. 6,067 was paid as salaries and wages to the technical staff in charge of the erection of plant. A sum of Rs. 18,672 was paid as travelling expenses to the technical personnel and to a director which was incurred by them for selection of machinery. A sum o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rendered as regards the lay-out of factory, types of machine tools required, selection of discs and fixtures, inspection of clutches and maintenance plant required and that, therefore, this payment also related to the erection of the plant and machinery. In that view, he held that the sum of Rs. 1,00,234 also could be capitalised and included in the cost of machinery and plant. The revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal against this finding. The Tribunal went into the agreement between the collaborators and the assessee and came to the conclusion that the amount was paid as consideration for the collaborators in agreeing not to export their products to India and also agreeing not to supply any technical information in connection with th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal will have to give a finding before it finally disposes of the appeal before it. But, for the sake of completeness, we may note in this order that the argument of the revenue was that the only question before the Tribunal related to the question of addition of this amount in the cost of plant and machinery as pre-production expenditure and that, therefore, the question whether it is a capital expenditure or revenue expenditure need not be gone into by the Tribunal or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that he did raise the alternative question that if the amount could not be included in the cost of plant and machinery for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X