INDIAN GINNING & PRESSING CO LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITR/282/1987HC GujaratGJHC24012014198706 August 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Indian Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd., is a private limited company engaged in ginning cotton waste, pressing cotton bales, dealing in straw boards, and earning rental income. For the assessment year 1982-83 (accounting period calendar year 1981), the assessee claimed Rs. 2,05,509/- for repairs to its office building and godown, and Rs. 29,592/- for borewell expenses. The Assessing Officer held both expenses to be capital in nature. The CIT(Appeals) reversed this, finding no enduring benefit. The Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which allowed the Revenue's appeal, holding both expenditures to be capital.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered both questions in the negative, in favour of the assessee. Regarding the office building expenditure, the Court found that the assessee had a business asset (godown) used as a creche, which was put to a different business use (administrative office). The asset retained its character, only its use changed. The Court noted that the Tribunal had not appreciated the accountant's admission in its entirety, as the old godown was used for resting workers and their children. The Court distinguished the cited cases of Ballimal Nawal Kishor and New Shorrock Spinning Mills, stating that those judgments dealt with 'current repairs' under Section 10(2)(v) of the 1922 Act, not the broader scope of Section 37. The Court held that there was no addition or expansion to the profit-making apparatus, and the income-earning capital remained unchanged. For the borewell expenditure, the Court held that the Tribunal erred in relying on a decision concerning the installation of a new borewell, as the expenditure in this case was for cleaning and altering an existing tubewell and pump after seven years. The Court concluded that the expenditure was not capital in nature.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that expenditure of Rs. 2,05,509/- incurred on the office building was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence not deductible as revenue expenditure, under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The expenditure merely converted an old hall, previously used as a creche and water room, into a premise for the office. No new building was created, fixed capital remained untouched, and the expenditure improved the efficiency of the profit-making apparatus. Reliance was placed on Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji & Co., and Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT. Revenue's contention: The old asset (hall) was not used for business. Extensive changes, including new flooring, roof sheets, plastered walls, painted walls, and new cabins, altered the identity of the premise internally and externally, creating a new asset and changing its use significantly, thus providing an enduring advantage in the capital field. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that expenditure of Rs. 29,392/- incurred on the borewell was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence not deductible as revenue expenditure, under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The borewell was dug in 1973. The expenditure was for repairing the existing borewell by changing pipes and the submersible pump, with most of the cost being labour charges. Revenue's contention: (Not explicitly recorded, but implied by the Tribunal's decision and the context of the first issue).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 37,Section 10(2)(v),Section 10(2)(xv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 282 of 1987

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO ----

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 256(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →