COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY-I, BOMBAY vs. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD., BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 512/1975Supreme Court[1988] 3 S.C.R. 91704 May 1988Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: R.S. PATHAK, M.H. KANIA8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (ACC), incurred expenditure of Rs. 2,09,459 during the accounting period relevant to assessment year 1959-60. This expenditure was related to a tripartite agreement between ACC, the Government of Hyderabad, and the Shahabad Municipality. Under this agreement, ACC was to supply water and electricity and concrete a road. In return, the Government agreed not to include ACC's properties within the Shahabad Municipality limits for fifteen years. ACC claimed this expenditure as a deduction. The Income-tax Officer disallowed it, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed it. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal directed scrutiny and allowed deduction to the extent it did not result in ACC owning an asset. The Bombay High Court held the expenditure to be revenue expenditure deductible from profits. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court held that the expenditure was revenue expenditure and deductible under Section 10(2)(xv). The reasoning was that while water supply lines were laid, they became the property of the Shahabad Municipality, not ACC. Therefore, the expenditure did not result in the creation of a capital asset for the company. The primary advantage gained by ACC was immunity from municipal rates and taxes for fifteen years. The Court, referencing Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, stated that not every advantage of an enduring nature makes expenditure capital. The crucial factor is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense. If the advantage facilitates trading operations or enables the business to be conducted more effectively without touching fixed capital, it is revenue expenditure, even if it endures indefinitely. In this case, the immunity from municipal taxes was an advantage in the revenue field, as paying such taxes would have been a revenue expense. There was no addition to ACC's capital assets or change in its capital structure.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the expenditure of Rs. 2,09,459 incurred by the company in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1959-60 was allowable as a deduction in determining the profits of the company for the assessment year 1959-60, under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? Assessee's Contention: The expenditure was revenue expenditure and thus deductible. The High Court's decision in favour of the assessee was correct. Revenue's Contention: (1) The expenditure resulted in the laying of water pipelines, which could be regarded as capital assets, making the expenditure capital in nature. (2) The advantage of immunity from municipal rates and taxes for fifteen years was an advantage of an enduring nature, thus classifying the expenditure as capital.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv),Section 66(A)(ii),Section 66(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

.~· ........ \ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY-I,-BOMBAY v. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD., BOMBAY MAY 4, 1988 [R.S. PATHAK, C.J. AND M.H. KANIA, J.] Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 -Whether expenditure incurred by assessee in accounting period relevant to the assessment period is liable to be allowed as deductible from assessee's profits under section A B 10(2)(xv)-Of. C This was an appeal by certificate under Section 66(A)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act against the judgment of the Bombay High Court on a reference of the question whether expenditure incurred by the company in the accounting period relevant to, the assessment period was allowable as deduction in determining the profits of the company for the D assessment year.

The assessee respondent had a factory at Shahabad. Under a tripar- tite agreement between the government, ·tbe assessee and the Munici- pality of Shahabad, the assessee had undertaken to supply water and electricity to Shahabad and to concrete the road from the factory to the railway station. Under clause 23, in consideration of these amenities to be provided by the assessee company, the Government undertook not to include a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(2)(xv)

All 90 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →