TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court remits matter to CIT(Appeals) for review after Tribunal upholds disallowance of capital expenditure.</h1> <h3>M/s. Super Spinning Mills Ltd., Versus The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-II, Coimbatore.</h3> M/s. Super Spinning Mills Ltd., Versus The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-II, Coimbatore. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of expenditure on replacement of machinery as capital expenditure.2. Levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act.3. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Expenditure on Replacement of Machinery:The assessee company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn and fabric and generation of electricity, filed returns for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1998-99. The Assessing Officer determined taxable income and disallowed expenditure on the replacement of machinery, treating it as capital expenditure. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal initially allowed the assessee's appeal, treating the expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, the High Court remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court decisions. The CIT(Appeals) subsequently reaffirmed the disallowance, citing that the replacement of machinery constituted capital expenditure, providing enduring benefits and increased production capacity. The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court, confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s order, dismissing the assessee's appeal.2. Levy of Interest under Section 220(2):The assessee contested the levy of interest under section 220(2), arguing that the Assessing Officer erred by not creating a charge in the assessment order and by not adhering to Circular No. 334, which mandates that interest under section 220(2) should be levied only from the date of notice of demand issued as a consequence of the fresh assessment order. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground based on the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not clearly explain the basis for levying interest under section 220(2) and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the levy of interest de novo, in accordance with the circular and law.3. Levy of Interest under Section 234B:The assessee also contested the levy of interest under section 234B, claiming that interest cannot be levied unless charged in the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had charged interest under section 234B in the assessment order itself. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Anujm M.H. Ghaswala And Others, which held that charging interest under section 234B is mandatory, the Tribunal dismissed this additional ground raised by the assessee.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of expenditure on the replacement of machinery and the levy of interest under section 234B, while allowing the appeal regarding the levy of interest under section 220(2) for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced on November 27, 2012, at Chennai.
TaxTMI 