1996 (11) TMI 112 - AT - Income Tax

Repair expenses on seed handling plant treated as capital not revenue expenditure. Net profit for deduction under section 80HHC includes all activities.

The Tribunal held that the repair expenses incurred on the seed handling plant should be treated as capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure. The ... Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Capital Expenditure, Export Business, Revenue Expenditure, Set Off Issues Involved:1. Treatment of repair expenses as capital or revenue expenditure.2. Allowability of deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Treatment of Repair Expenses as Capital or Revenue Expenditure:Summary of Arguments:- Assessee's Argument: The assessee claimed that the repair expenses of Rs. 16,47,766 incurred on the seed handling plant should be treated as revenue expenditure. The plant, which was damaged due to a dust explosion, was repaired to restore it to its original working condition. The assessee argued that no additional benefit or asset was created, and the plant was not completely destroyed. They cited various judgments to support their claim.- Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that the seed handling plant was completely destroyed in the explosion and was reconstructed with a new design. The expenses incurred were for the reconstruction of the plant, not mere repairs, and thus should be treated as capital expenditure. They also relied on various judgments to support their stance.Tribunal's Findings:- The Tribunal examined the survey reports, photographs, and other evidence. It concluded that substantial damage was caused to the seed handling plant, and the nature of the damage required reconstruction rather than mere repairs.- The Tribunal noted that the reconstruction involved changes in the design and capacity of the plant, and the expenses incurred were not just for repairs but for reconstruction.- The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred in the reconstruction of the plant should be treated as capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and agreed with the observations that the amount spent on work-in-progress should not be allowed for depreciation.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the repair expenses should be treated as capital expenditure, and the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the assessee's claim.2. Allowability of Deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act:Summary of Arguments:- Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that the loss incurred on export trading activities should be ignored while computing the net profit for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC. They contended that the provisions of sub-clause (c) to section 80HHC(3) speak only of profit on trading goods and not losses. They cited various judgments and interpretations to support their claim.- Revenue's Argument: The revenue argued that the net profit should be computed by clubbing the profits from both the manufacturing and trading activities, irrespective of whether the profit is positive or negative. They emphasized that the word 'profit' in sub-clause (c) of section 80HHC(3) means the net profit from both activities. They also cited various judgments to support their interpretation.Tribunal's Findings:- The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of section 80HHC and concluded that the net profit from both the manufacturing and trading activities should be computed by clubbing the individual profits, whether positive or negative.- The Tribunal emphasized that the word 'profit' includes both positive and negative profits (losses), and both must enter into computation for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC.- The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly interpreted the provisions of section 80HHC and properly applied them to the assessee's case. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and rejected the assessee's ground.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the net profit for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC should be computed by considering both the profits and losses from the manufacturing and trading activities. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and the assessee's claim was rejected.