TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that expenditure on Jigs & Fixtures is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure, ignoring the fact that Jigs & Fixtures deliver benefits of enduring nature and therefore is in the nature of capital expenditure. iii) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to verify and allow an additional claim of 1,04,79,969/- towards stamp duty as part of the cost of acquisition for computing short-term capital gains, when such claim was not made in the original return of income nor through a revised return, in contravention of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC)?" iv) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction in respect of proportionate premium paid on leasehold land without appreciating the fact that the same constitutes capital expenditure and the claim has not been made in original return filed? v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....64/- incurred by the assessee for purchase/manufacture of dyes and moulds and the same is used for production of parts used in manufacture of company's products. The assessee further submitted that cost of new dyes and moulds claimed as deduction, during the year under consideration, represents only replacements either on account of wear and tear of the dyes or change in the design of the parts. The assessee further submitted that dyes and moulds purchased during the year does not result in creation of any new capital asset, it does not provide any benefit of enduring nature to the company, and therefore, cannot be held to be capital expenditure and hence the expenditure incurred by the assessee on purchase of dyes and moulds should be allowed as deduction. In this regard, the assessee also placed reliance upon decisions of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal rendered in its own case in preceding years. 5. The Assessing Officer ("AO"), vide order dated 30.12.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and following the approach adopted by the Revenue in the preceding years held the expenditure incurred on dyes and moulds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....identical issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee's own case for Assessment Year: 1990-91 to 1994-95 (ITA No. 6324 & 6325/Mum/2010 and 6963 & 6964/Mum/2014) on merits. For the sake of clarity, relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- 5.1. We find that for the Assessment Year 1991, 1993-94 & 1994-95, the only ground raised by the revenue is with regard to the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the revenue expenditure in respect of replacement of figs and fixtures and dies and moulds. The decision restored by us in ground no. 1 for Assessment Year 1990-91 would hold good for the same. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 56. Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions of Coordinate bench of ITAT in assessee's own case which is applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case, we are inclined to accept the submission of Ld. AR. Accordingly, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed." 7. We further observe that in assessee's own case for the immediately preceding Assessment Year i.e. A.Y. 1996-97, the Tribunal decided the above issue in favour of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal in its own case wherein such expenditure was treated as revenue expenditure. 13. The AO, vide assessment order, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and following the approach adopted by the Revenue in preceding years treated the expenditure incurred on purchase of jigs and fixtures as capital expenditure. Further, the AO also allowed the depreciation to an extent of Rs. 17,31,91,734/- on the same. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue following the decision of the Tribunal rendered in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03 cited supra. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2001-02 cited supra, vide order dated 23.02.2024 by following the decisions rendered in preceding years held that the expenditure incurred on jigs and fixtures is revenue in nature. The relevant findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the aforesaid decisions are reproduced as follows: "22. Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1990-91. Assessee submitted that these are nothing but replacement of jigs and fixtures in the main plant and machinery and would be eligible for deduction as revenue expenditure. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee requested the Id. AO to allow the sum of Rs. 94,92,103/- as deduction in A.Y. 1990-91 and the balance sum of Rs. 11,18,955/- in A.Y. 1991-92 since the said amount was lying in capital work in progress and the same was not put to use during the A. Y. 1990-91. We find that the Id. AO observed that the expenditure incurred on replacement of jigs and fixtures would be capital expenditure and accordingly, granted depreciation thereon. It is not in dispute that assessee had indeed capitalised the replacement cost of jigs and fixtures in its books and had claimed depreciation as per Companies Act in its books. However, for the purpose of Income Tax, the assessee had claimed the said expenditure as the revenue expenditure on the ground that the said expenditure would fall under the category of "current repairs". We find that the present state of appellate proceedings is the second round of proceedings, since in the first round, this Tribunal had restored ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the CIT(A) on this issue. Ergo, ground No 3 raised in the appeal by Revenue is dismissed." 17. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in A.Y. 1996-97 is respectfully followed, accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed." 23. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in A.Y. 1997-98 is respectfully followed, accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed." 15. We find that similar findings were also rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT vs. M/s. Bajaj Holding and Investment Ltd. in ITA No.2899/Mum/2010 for the assessment year 2002-03 vide order dated 24.06.2024. 16. The Revenue could not bring any material on record to deviate from the findings so rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in preceding years. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal cited supra, which has also been followed by the learned CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the same are upheld and ground no.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case held that amount written off in respect of premium on leasehold land is allowable as deduction. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 23. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. We find that while deciding the similar issue, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Bajaj Holdings and Investment Ltd. (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) vs. ACIT, in ITA No.3043/Mum/2010, for the assessment year 2002-03, vide order dated 24.06.2024 following the decisions of the Tribunal on similar issue observed as follows: "13. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. With the assistance of id. representative we have perused the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of the assessee itself vide ITA No. 3055/Mum/2005 dated 28.11.2023. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced as under: "40. The assessee claim annual rent payable as per the lease agreement as deduction which was not allowed by the AO. However, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee. We find that similar issue on identical fact has been decide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue, observed as follows: "102. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 1996-97. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the immediately preceding assessment year in ITA. No. 1781/Mum/2000 dated 20.06.2022 following the decision in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1995-96, held as under: - "19. A perusal of the assessment order shows that in computation of total income the Assessing Officer has added provision for bad and doubtful debts Rs. 2,85,47,483/-. However, the Assessing Officer has not given any reasoning for adding provision for doubtful debts. In the first appellate proceedings the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of the aforesaid amount. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We find that in assessment year 1995-96 the Assessing Officer in identical manner had added provision for doubtful debts. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal following the decision rende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome filed by the assessee. As noted in the foregoing paragraphs, the appellate authority can entertain such fresh claim made by the assessee, even if such a claim was not made in the return of income or by way of revised return of income. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) to the extent that such fresh claim of the assessee was admitted. However, since such a claim was made for the first time, we are of the considered view that it needs to be examined in the light of the law on the subject. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to amend the directions of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly direct the AO to verify the claim and decide on the allowability of the deduction of income tax paid by the assessee in Chile as per law. Accordingly, the directions issued by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order are accordingly modified. As a result, ground no.6 raised in Revenue's Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 34. The issue arising in ground no.7, raised in Revenue's Appeal, pertains to the allowability of deduction of software expenditure. 35. The brief facts of the case are that during the appellate proceedings before the lear....