Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
 
 
« News Headlines »
 How to save income tax? Here are 6 investments with tax free income
 10 Top salary deductions that can save tax for you
 What are the tax saving options beyond Section 80C?
 The penalties for not paying tax on time
 How to make your salary tax efficient
 I-T Department may go into overdrive this quarter
 Ways to reduce the TDS deduction from your salary
 4 Tips for choosing who prepares your 2017 Tax Returns
 Processing of income-tax returns under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act which were filed in Forms ITR-1 to 6 & applicability of section 143(1)(a)(vi)
 Price Waterhouse gets 2-year ban in Satyam case
 How to save income tax under section 80C

Textile mills in a tax spin
September, 22nd 2007

In a recent textile mills case, the apex court ruled that the criterion for tax deductibility was not whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature, but whether the expenditure was for current repairs.


T. C. A. Ramanujam

The judiciary can be unpredictable at times. A company plans its tax affairs, presuming the law to be what the High Courts have laid down. But, unexpectedly, the applecart is upset, often leading to intervention by the Supreme Court. This is what has happened in respect of textile mills, which have been riding a wave of tax prosperity in the light of court rulings that expenditure on replacement of worn-out machines should be allowed as revenue expenditure and that no new asset is created in the process of replacement.

For instance, the Madras High Court, in CIT vs Janakiram Mills Ltd (275 ITR 403), had ruled that the concepts of current repairs, modernisation and expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business should all be interpreted in changing modern contexts e allowed either as current repairs or revenue expenditure in computing business income of the textile mill. .

It was an exhaustive judgment based on, among other things, the report of the South India Textile Research Association (SITRA).

Mill as plant

The Revenue took up the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. The company argued that the whole textile mill should be considered a plant and ring frames were only one of the 25 machines which constituted one single process and, therefore, replacement of the frames had to be treated only as a replacement of old parts which had become derelict and not as replacement of a machine.

The assessing officer (AO) had held that by the replacement, the textile mill had obtained an enduring benefit and the expenditure incurred was capital in nature, not falling as current repairs under Section 31(i) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.

On appeal, the three appellate authorities, namely, the CIT (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, held that the process of converting fibre to yarn was one continuous interlinked process and that the ring frames could not work independently and could work only as a part of the spinning unit with the result that the expenditure was deductible under Section 31(i).

Reversing the Madras High Court decision, the Supreme Court (in 293 ITR 201) ruled that the manufacturing process in the textile mill was not one continuous integrated process. In cases involving the applicability of Section 31(i) of the Act, the test was not whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature, but whether the expenditure was current repairs.

The basic test was to find whether the expenditure was incurred to preserve and maintain an already existing asset. It should not bring a new asset into existence. There should be no enduring advantage. Deduction was admissible only for current repairs. The question whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature was not quite relevant. Even if the expenditure is revenue in nature, it may not fall in the connation of current repairs.

The AO was right in holding that each machine, including the ring frame, was independent and separate, capable of specific functions. Expenditure incurred for replacement of machine would not come within the meaning of current repairs. All repairs do not attract Section 31(i) even though the expenditure is revenue in nature.

Enduring advantage

The ring frame by itself constituted an independent machine with an independent function. It was replaced by a new ring frame giving enduring advantage to the textile mill. Replacement of three ring frames constituted substitution of an old asset by a new and, therefore, the expenditure incurred did not constitute current repairs.

All the authorities the CIT (Appeals), the Tribunal and the High Court had proceeded on the footing that since the expenditure was revenue, it constituted current repairs. This, said the Supreme Court, is an erroneous view. The court explained the concept of current repairs and decided the matter in favour of the Revenue.

At the same time, the court left the door open for future cases, pointing out that even if a case does not fall under Section 31(i), it is open to the assessee company to make out a case for relief under Section 37 and claim the expenditure as incurred wholly and exclusively for business.

(The author is a former Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax.)
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Website Ranking Website Ranking Company Website Positioning Alexa Ranking Website Promotion Website top 10 ranking website top 10 promotion search engine result promotion Strategic Internet Marketing Website Optimization Website Ranking Factors

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions