2011 (10) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Court affirms expenditure classification in machinery purchase case, emphasizing specific circumstances over depreciation schedule.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD.

The court upheld the tribunal's decision that the expenditure on purchasing moulds was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. It emphasized that ... Purchase of moulds - capital expenditure or revenue expenditure - Held that:- In the instant case having regard to the nature of the business of the assessee and applying the principle of law enunciated in Mysore Spun Concrete Pipe Pvt. Ltd.’s case (1991 -TMI - 22014 - KARNATAKA High Court), the Tribunal has reached a conclusion that the moulds in question do not enhance the capacity of the existing machines and are merely replacements for the moulds damaged during the process of manufacture of glass. It is also evident from the format of the question proposed by the Revenue, that finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the expenditure in question was incurred by the assessee on the ‘replacement’ of the moulds is not under challenge. - Decided in favor of assessee. Issues:1. Whether the expenditure on the purchase of moulds is capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.Analysis:The appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the nature of expenditure incurred on the purchase of moulds. The tribunal accepted the respondent-assessee's stand that the expenditure on moulds is revenue expenditure. The assessee contended that the moulds were integral parts of injection moulding machines and had to be replaced due to wear and tear. The Assessing Officer argued that since moulds were classified as capital assets in the depreciation schedule, the purchase price cannot be treated as revenue expenditure. However, the court emphasized that the classification in the depreciation schedule does not determine the nature of expenditure as revenue or capital. It stated that the purchase of moulds should be evaluated based on the specific circumstances of each case.The court highlighted that the replacement of parts of existing machinery during its operation is considered revenue expenditure. It emphasized that the enduring benefit of expenditure is not the sole criterion for categorizing it as capital expenditure. Referring to a previous judgment, the court reiterated that the replacement of parts in machinery during operation generally constitutes revenue expenditure. The tribunal's decision was supported by the court, which concluded that the moulds in question did not enhance the machine's capacity but were replacements for damaged moulds during the manufacturing process. As a result, the court dismissed the appeals, stating that no legal issue warranted consideration based on the tribunal's findings.