Windmill project payment deemed capital expenditure by Tribunal, not revenue. Loss linked to investment, not business.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the payment made for the windmill project constituted capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure. The Tribunal determined that the payment was a capital advance for acquiring a capital asset, emphasizing that the loss was related to an investment, not regular business activities. Despite the assessee's argument that the loss was a write-off of an imaginary asset, the Tribunal held that the payment was for creating an asset. Legal precedents supported this conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the payment of advance made for acquisition of an existing windmill power project is considered capital expenditure or revenue expenditureRs.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of CIT(A)-II, Pune dated 02.11.2012 relating to assessment year 2009-10 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee ventured into a new business activity of generation and distribution of energy by taking over an existing windmill business. The Assessing Officer disallowed the windmill expenses of &8377; 97,91,624/-, considering it as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses and treated &8377; 90 lakhs as capital expenditure. The assessee contended that the loss due to forfeiture of advance money was revenue expenditure. The payment was made under a MOU which was later canceled due to failure to fulfill payment terms. The assessee argued that as the asset was never acquired, the expenses were a write-off of an imaginary asset, not capital expenditure. The authorities held the payment as capital advance for acquiring a capital asset, not revenue expenditure. The Tribunal agreed, stating the loss arose from investment, not regular business, making it capital loss. The decisions cited by the assessee were distinguished as those involved regular business expenses, unlike the present case. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to support its view. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the order of the CIT(A).

This case primarily revolved around determining whether the payment made for the windmill project was capital or revenue expenditure. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the payment, considering the cancellation of the MOU and the purpose of the advance. The Tribunal concluded that the payment was a capital advance for acquiring a capital asset, not a revenue expenditure. The assessee's argument that the loss was a write-off of an imaginary asset was rejected, emphasizing that the payment was for creating an asset. The Tribunal's decision was supported by legal precedents and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the appeal.

---