2006 (1) TMI 621 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed: Relocation & Ground Levelling as Revenue Expenses, R&D Costs Affirmed, Excise Duty/Sales Tax Excluded.

Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai Versus Brakes India Ltd.

The HC dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's rulings on multiple issues. It upheld that the relocation of plant and machinery and ground ... Notice issued u/s 147 to reopen the assessment - sent after a notice u/s 154 for rectification - expenditure on relocation of plant and machinery - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that there is no error in the order of the Tribunal and hence no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in respect of Question Nos. 2 to 5. When we have dismissed the merits it is a futile exercise to refer the Question No. 1, which is academic in nature. We see no substantial questions of law arising for our consideration. The appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Notice under section 147 after section 154 notice2. Allowability of expenditure on relocation of plant and machinery3. Classification of expenditure on levelling of ground for water storage4. Treatment of R&D unit expenses for deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I5. Exclusion of excise duty and sales tax from turnover for deduction under section 80HHAnalysis:1. Notice under section 147 after section 154 notice:The Tribunal was questioned on sending a notice under section 147 after a notice under section 154 for rectification was issued to the assessee. However, the court deemed this question academic since the other issues were already decided. No substantial question of law was found in this regard.2. Allowability of expenditure on relocation of plant and machinery:The case involved the re-adjustment of plant and machinery within the same factory shed for better productivity. The Assessing Officer considered it capital expenditure, but the CIT(A) and the Tribunal ruled it as revenue expenditure. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the relocation facilitated better functioning of existing assets, not creating new assets, thus qualifying as revenue expenditure.3. Classification of expenditure on levelling of ground for water storage:Regarding the levelling of ground for water storage, the Assessing Officer viewed it as capital expenditure, while the CIT(A) and the Tribunal considered it revenue expenditure. The court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing that the expenditure aimed at facilitating water storage, not creating an enduring asset, making it revenue in nature.4. Treatment of R&D unit expenses for deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I:The dispute involved expenses on a Research and Development (R&D) unit concerning deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I. The Assessing Officer linked R&D unit expenses to the Sholinganallur unit for deduction calculation, but the CIT(A) supported the assessee. The Tribunal found no evidence of a lack of connection between the R&D unit and Sholinganallur unit, leading the court to affirm the Tribunal's decision.5. Exclusion of excise duty and sales tax from turnover for deduction under section 80HH:The issue was in line with a previous Court judgment. The Tribunal's decision to exclude excise duty and sales tax from turnover for deduction under section 80HH was upheld by the court, citing the precedent set by the case of CIT v. Wheels India Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 3191.In conclusion, the court found no errors in the Tribunal's orders for the issues discussed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with no substantial questions of law identified.