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>Assessee's Water Pipeline Rerouting Expense: Revenue Expenditure for Business Operations</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Cominco Binani Zinc Limited</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Cominco Binani Zinc Limited - [1993] 204 ITR 56 Issues involved: Determination of whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company on re-routing the water pipeline is a revenue expenditure and deductible.Summary:The assessee-company, engaged in manufacturing zinc slabs, incurred expenditure on re-routing the water pipeline due to increased salinity in the river, affecting the availability of water for operations. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the expenditure as capital expenditure, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held it to be revenue expenditure necessary for business operations. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the expenditure was incurred to enable the company to carry on its business effectively, without resulting in an enduring benefit. The Tribunal also noted that similar actions had been taken in the past. The Revenue argued that the expenditure created a capital asset and resulted in enduring benefits, citing a previous court decision. However, the assessee contended that the expenditure was essential for business operations and did not lead to enduring benefits.The Tribunal found that the expenditure on re-routing the pipeline was revenue in nature as it was necessary for the assessee to carry on its business effectively. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also supported this view, highlighting the operational necessity of the expenditure for running the factory and earning profits. The Tribunal's decision was further supported by precedents such as CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd., emphasizing that expenditure for operational purposes is typically considered revenue expenditure.In line with various legal precedents and considering the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, affirming that the expenditure on re-routing the pipeline was indeed revenue expenditure. The judgment was in favor of the assessee, and no costs were awarded.*Separate Judgment by AJIT K. SENGUPTA J.:* AJIT K. SENGUPTA J. concurred with the decision and reasoning presented in the main judgment.
TaxTMI 