1967 (5) TMI 4 - SC - Income Tax

High Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision on Expenditure for 'Casablanca Conversion System'

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras Versus Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Limited

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to allow the expenditure incurred on introducing the 'Casablanca conversion system' under section 10(2)(v) ... Right of the assessee to claim allowance - Whether the allowance was admissible under one head or the other of sub-s. (2) of s. 10, the subject-matter for the appeal remained the same, and the tribunal having held that the expenditure incurred fell within the terms of s. 10(2)(v), though not under s. 10(2)(vib), it had jurisdiction to admit that expenditure as a permissible allowance in the computation of the taxable income of the assessee - revenue appeal dismissed Issues:1. Allowability of expenditure for introducing 'Casablanca conversion system' as development rebate or under section 10(2)(v) of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide on the admissibility of the expenditure under section 10(2)(v) and as an expenditure for current repairs.Analysis:The respondent, engaged in the business of cotton yarn manufacture, spent Rs. 93,215 on introducing the 'Casablanca conversion system' in its spinning plant. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, stating it did not qualify as development rebate due to not involving the installation of new machinery. The Appellate Tribunal, after inspecting the factory, held that though not admissible as development rebate, the expenditure was allowable under section 10(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal referred two questions to the High Court regarding the jurisdiction to decide on the allowance of the expenditure under section 10(2)(v) and as an expenditure for current repairs.The High Court accepted the Tribunal's findings that the introduction of the system did not install new machinery but involved fitting improved versions of certain parts, making the expenditure revenue in nature. The Tribunal's evidence indicated that the system constituted current repairs to the machinery. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's jurisdiction to permit new contentions not raised before departmental authorities.The Tribunal's authority to allow a plea inconsistent with the one raised before the authorities was upheld, emphasizing that all questions related to the assessment could be raised. The Tribunal concluded that the system's introduction constituted current repairs, not installation of new machinery. The Tribunal's decision to admit the expenditure under section 10(2)(v) was deemed valid, as the subject matter of the appeal remained the same.The judgment affirmed the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider the expenditure as a permissible allowance under section 10(2)(v), even though not under section 10(2)(vib). The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision and confirming the allowance of the expenditure under section 10(2)(v) for current repairs.