TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....engaged in the business of manufacturing of Pressure and Gravity Die Casting, H.T. Coils, Magnetos, Automotive Clutches, Brakes, Vehicles Bodies etc. The return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 filed on 29.09.2010 declaring a loss of Rs. 13,98,79,410/- and the same was revised on 23.03.2012 at a loss of Rs. 15,58,68,435/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and the assessment came to be completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune ('the Assessing Officer' for short) at a loss of Rs. 15,18,07,280/- vide order dated 06.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made an additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Midas Rubber (P.) Ltd., 43 taxmann.com 112. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. CIT-DR placed reliance on the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. The issue involved in the present appeal relates to whether the expenditure incurred on the cost of Gripper which is used in the robotic arms forming part of high pressure die casting machines can be allowed as revenue expenditure. The factual submissions made on behalf of the appellant are that the expenditure was incurred on replacement of Gripper which is part of robotic arms forming part of high pressure die casting machines. There is no increase of productivity or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E, it is contended by Mr. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the assessee that the expression "current repairs" denotes the repairs for the purpose of preserving or maintaining an already existing asset. It does not bring about a new asset into existence, nor does it give a new or different advantage. Therefore, he contends that the test of improvement or advantage is not relevant to determine whether the repair was current repair or not. It is his further contention that the magnitude of the expenditure cannot also determine whether something is current repair or not. 21. In order to test the correctness of the above contention, it is necessary to have a look at the provisions of Sections 31 and 37. 22. Under Section 31,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or profession", will be covered by Section 37(1). 26. But, what is important to note is that under both provisions, namely Section 31 as well as Section 37(1), capital expenditure is excluded. If an amount paid on account of current repairs is in the nature of capital expenditure, Section 31 cannot be invoked. Similarly, Section 37(1) cannot also be invoked. 31. On the contention of Mr. T. Ravikumar, learned Standing Counsel that the assessee originally capitalised the expenditure, but reversed the same later, we have to point out that there cannot be any estoppel in such cases. The question whether a particular expenditure would fall within the definition of the expression "current repairs" under Section 31(i) or not, doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvana Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) was with respect to the deduction u/s. 31 of the Act and also based on the finding of fact that in textile mill each machine in a segment of a textile mill has an independent role to play in the mill and the output of each division is different from the other. Noticing these distinguishing facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills (supra) held that the ratio of decision in the case of Sarvana Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) not applicable, therefore, restored the matter to the CIT(A) to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of subsequent judgments set-aside the is....