2006 (6) TMI 422 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Confirms Rs. 2.56 Crore Expenses as Deductible Revenue, Dismissing Revenue's Appeal Under Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that the Rs. 2,56,55,355/- expenses were revenue in nature and deductible under Section 37(1) of the ... Nature of expenditure - Disallowance on product/development expenses - installed plant - Business loss/deductions - HELD THAT:- From the facts discussed, it is clear that the assessee was already in the business of manufacture of BOPP films and its unit had started commercial production on 6-3-1990 relating to assessment year 1990-91. This fact is admitted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, paper book being explanatory notes to the financial statements clearly mentioned that the expenditure incurred by the assessee related to improvement in product specification of BOPP films and also to develop new varieties of the BOPP films. paper book further mentions that the installed capacity of the unit remained at 3150 tonnes. Thus, the expenditure incurred did not result in enhancing the installed capacity of the unit. The assessee has not acquired any new plant and machinery and the expenditure falls in the category of revenue. Since the expenditure incurred related to improving and developing the new varieties of BOPP films already manufactured by the assessee, it cannot be said that the expenses related to setting up of a new unit or for expansion of the existing unit. No disallowance under section 35D could be made for the reason that section 35D deals with the amortisation of certain preliminary expenses before the commencement of the business, or after the commencement of the business, in connection with the extension of industrial undertaking or in connection with the setting up a new industrial unit. In the present case, the expenditure incurred could not be considered to fall in the capital field. Therefore, no disallowance u/s 35D in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee could be made. The very fact that the assessee has capitalized or amortised the expenses in the books of account for 8 years would not mean that the assessee has acquired enduring benefit for all the 8 years. Therefore, no disallowance could be made on the ground that expenditure is capital in nature when the nature of expenditure incurred show the same is revenue in nature and was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction of the impugned expenditure. We confirm his order and reject the grounds of appeal of the revenue. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 2,56,55,355/- on account of product/development expenses.2. Determination of whether the expenses were revenue or capital in nature.3. Applicability of Section 35D of the Income-tax Act.4. Treatment of expenses in financial statements and its impact on tax deductions.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Disallowance of Rs. 2,56,55,355/- on Account of Product/Development ExpensesThe revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 2,56,55,355/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that these expenses were for developing new products and were related to business, thereby allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) found that the expenses were indeed incurred for developing new varieties of BOPP films and were necessary for minimizing wastage and improving quality, hence allowable as revenue expenditure.2. Determination of Whether the Expenses Were Revenue or Capital in NatureThe AO initially disallowed the expenses, treating them as capital in nature under Section 35D(2)(a), arguing that the development of new products was linked to the extension of the assessee's existing business. However, the CIT(A) and later the Tribunal found that the expenses were revenue in nature, as they were incurred for improving and developing new varieties of the same product already being manufactured by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the expenses did not result in an increase in the installed capacity of the unit and were for operational improvements.3. Applicability of Section 35D of the Income-tax ActThe AO applied Section 35D, which deals with the amortization of preliminary expenses incurred before the commencement of business or in connection with the extension of an industrial undertaking or setting up a new industrial unit. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the business had already commenced, and no new industrial unit was being set up or extended. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 35D applies only to capital expenditure, and the expenses in question were revenue in nature, thus not falling under Section 35D.4. Treatment of Expenses in Financial Statements and Its Impact on Tax DeductionsThe AO emphasized that the assessee had capitalized and amortized the expenses in its financial statements, suggesting they were capital in nature. However, the Tribunal clarified that accounting entries are not the determinant factor in deciding the nature of the expenditure. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which states that the nature of the expenditure should be determined based on its purpose and not merely on how it is recorded in the books. The Tribunal also cited similar cases where expenses treated as capital in financial statements were allowed as revenue expenditure for tax purposes.ConclusionThe Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the expenses were revenue in nature and allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order to allow the deduction of the impugned expenditure was confirmed. The Tribunal emphasized that the nature of the expenses, rather than their treatment in financial statements, should determine their tax deductibility.