Depreciation allowed on ready-to-use machinery despite non-production due to circumstances beyond assessee's control under section 32

The HC upheld ITAT's decision allowing depreciation on beverages division assets despite non-commencement of commercial production due to public agitation beyond assessee's control. The court held that machinery kept ready for use qualifies for depreciation under section 32, even if unused due to unavoidable circumstances. The HC also allowed expenditure claims for cane price differences, finding the revenue's denial based on conjecture without evidence. Additionally, payments treated as "goodwill" for uninterrupted sugarcane supply were allowed as business expenditure. The book profit computation under section 115JB was decided favorably for the assessee following these determinations.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

1. Whether depreciation on the assets of the beverages division is allowable when commercial production had not commenced but the assets were ready for use during the relevant assessment year.

2. Whether the assessee can claim expenditure relating to additional cane price fixed by government orders issued in an earlier year but received by the assessee in the subsequent year, consistent with the mercantile system of accounting.

3. Whether the assessee can claim deduction of an amount treated as an intangible asset (goodwill) representing payments made over and above statutory cane prices in earlier years, when the payments were recorded as advances and not claimed as expenditure in those years.

4. Whether the assessee is entitled to deduct Rs. 25 crores of Cane Equalization Fund from net profit while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1: Depreciation on Beverages Division Assets

The legal framework involves Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, which permits depreciation on assets used for business purposes. The Court examined whether actual use in the relevant year is necessary or whether readiness for use suffices.

The Court noted that the assessee had established a beverages division pursuant to a valid agreement and obtained all necessary statutory permissions. A trial run was conducted, raw materials were consumed, and production was analyzed and found suitable for marketing. The only impediment to commercial production was public agitation beyond the assessee's control.

The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning that actual use of machinery in the relevant year is not mandatory for claiming depreciation. It is sufficient if the asset is ready and available for use. Since the beverages division was integrated into the existing business and formed part of the block of assets, depreciation on the entire block, including the beverages division assets, was allowable. The Court emphasized that "existence of an individual asset in the block of assets itself amounts to use for the purpose of business."

Competing arguments that commercial production had not commenced and hence depreciation should be disallowed were rejected as the delay was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control.

Conclusion: Depreciation on the beverages division assets was allowable despite the absence of commercial production in the relevant year.

Issue 2: Timing of Deduction for Additional Cane Price under Clause 5A of Sugarcane (Control) Order

The relevant legal principle is the mercantile system of accounting, where expenses are recognized when the liability crystallizes. The government issued orders under Clause 5A fixing additional cane prices on 27.07.2004 and 29.10.2004, which pertained to AY 2005-06. However, the assessee received these orders only in May and June 2005, i.e., during AY 2006-07.

The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the liability crystallized in AY 2005-06. The Court found no evidence that the orders were dispatched promptly after notification or that the assessee had received them earlier. The Tribunal's finding that the liability crystallized only upon receipt of the orders was accepted.

The Court held that since the expenditure was allowable in either AY 2005-06 or AY 2006-07, the assessee's choice to claim it in AY 2006-07 when the orders were actually received was valid. The Revenue's denial was based on conjecture without material evidence.

Conclusion: The expenditure due to additional cane price fixed under Clause 5A was allowable in AY 2006-07 when the orders were received, consistent with mercantile accounting principles.

Issue 3: Deduction of Intangible Asset (Goodwill) Representing Payments Over Statutory Cane Prices

The facts revealed that sugar factories make payments to cane growers over and above statutory minimum prices and Clause 5A prices to ensure uninterrupted supply. The assessee paid Rs. 76.38 crores as agreed price over statutory amounts, recorded as advances to farmers in earlier years, and treated as intangible asset (goodwill) in the books. The assessee claimed deduction of this amount as revenue expenditure in AY 2006-07.

The Revenue disputed the claim on the ground that the expenditure pertained to earlier years and that treatment as goodwill was impermissible.

The Court noted that the payment was not disputed and was revenue in nature. The additional liability crystallized only after the government orders under Clause 5A were received. The assessee's accounting practice was consistent and reflected the commercial reality of payment for cane procurement.

The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the nomenclature of 'goodwill' invalidated the claim. Since the payment was closely related to business and not recoverable, it was allowable as business expenditure. The Court observed surprise that the assessee did not claim the entire amount as cane procurement expenditure initially but did not find this fatal to the claim.

Conclusion: The deduction claimed on the intangible asset representing additional payments to cane growers was allowable as revenue expenditure in AY 2006-07.

Issue 4: Deduction of Cane Equalization Fund from Net Profit under Section 115JB

The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 25 crores of Cane Equalization Fund from net profit while computing book profit under Section 115JB. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as the amount was debited in the Profit and Loss Appropriation account and not credited to Profit and Loss Account as reserve.

The Court, relying on the favorable findings on the earlier issues, held that the amount once added to net profit should be excluded again while computing book profit under Section 115JB. No separate detailed legal framework was discussed, but the decision followed from the treatment of the amounts in the earlier issues.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to deduct Rs. 25 crores of Cane Equalization Fund while computing book profit under Section 115JB.

Significant Holdings:

On depreciation, the Court stated: "in order to get depreciation under Section 32 of the Act, it is not necessary that the machinery in question should have been actually used in the relevant previous year for the purpose of business and it is sufficient if the same is kept ready for use during the relevant previous year, though not actually used due to circumstances beyond assessee's control."

On timing of expenditure recognition, the Court emphasized that "the expenditure as a result of order passed under Clause 5A of the Order has been crystallized only when the assessee received the Government orders," rejecting the Revenue's denial based on assumptions.

On the intangible asset issue, the Court held: "When the payment is not disputed and the purpose of payment is also not in dispute, we see no justification in denying the claim of the said expenditure as business expenditure only on the ground that the assessee treated the said payment as advance to the farmers under the nomenclature of 'goodwill'."

On the Cane Equalization Fund, the Court concluded that the amount "once added into the net profit has to be excluded again from net profit while computing the book profit under Section 115JB."

---