THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 MUMBAI vs. TATA SSL LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of Rs. 45,21,000/- as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal held that by paying the charges, the assessee did not acquire any right or control over the gas facility. The facilities served the sole purpose of supplying gas to the assessee's works, making it an integral part of the profit-earning process. This facilitated carrying on the assessee's business more efficiently without providing any enduring benefit. The Tribunal relied on the Apex Court judgments in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT and L.H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T., U.P., and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. The High Court found no fault with the Tribunal's decision, noting that the assets remained the property of Mahanagar Gas Ltd. and the sole object of the payment was to get gas to facilitate the manufacturing activity. The appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, TATA SSL Ltd., a public limited company engaged in manufacturing steel wire rods, wires, CR sheets, and profiles, paid Rs. 45,21,000/- to Mahanagar Gas Ltd. for a CNG connection in assessment year 2002-03. The assessee claimed this as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, deeming it a capital contribution for assets like service meters, regulators, and pipelines, made before gas supply commenced. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, considering the expenditure integral to the profit-earning process. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the assessee acquired no control over the gas facility, which solely served to supply gas for the assessee's business operations without providing enduring benefit.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim of Rs. 45,21,000/- as revenue expenditure, being a one-time payment made to Mahanagar Gas Ltd. towards CNG connection charges, even though such payment was made as a capital contribution towards the cost of service meter, twin steam engine regulator, meter regulating station, and cost of pipelines up to meter regulating stations, and was a payment made before the commencement of gas supply? Assessee's contention: The expenditure was incurred as an integral part of the profit-earning process and not for the acquisition of an asset of a permanent character. The assessee did not acquire any right or control over the gas facility, which served the sole purpose of supplying gas to facilitate the manufacturing activity and carry on business more efficiently without giving any enduring benefit. Revenue's contention: The payments made by the assessee to Mahanagar Gas Ltd. were in respect of assets intended to give enduring benefit to the assessee. The expenditure was capital in nature.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 itxa1321-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1321 OF 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020. ..Appellant. V/s. TATA SSL Ltd. Dattapada Road, Borivili (East), Mumbai - 400 066. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr. Dinesh Vyas with Ajit Shah and Shrihari M. Iyer for respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 7TH JUNE, 2011 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 8TH JUNE, 2011
JUDGMENT (PER J.P. DEVEDHAR, J.)
The question of law raised in this appeal by the revenue reads thus:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in CNR No : HCBM020269552009 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:01:27
2 itxa1321-10 law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee company of Rs.45,21,000/- as revenue expenditure being one time payment made to Mahanagar Gas Ltd. by the assessee company towards CNG connection charges even though such payment was made as capital contribution towards cost of service metre, twin steam engine regulator, meter regulating station and cost of pipelines up to meter regulating stations and was a payment made before commencement of gas supply ? 2. The assessee, a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing steel wire rods, wires, CR sheets and profiles, had paid Rs.45,21,000/- to Mahanagar Gas Ltd. towards CNG connection in the assessment year 2002-03. The said expenditure was claimed as revenue expenditure. The assessing officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the payment was made as capital contribution towards the cost of acquiring service metre, twin steam regulator, meter regulating station and cost of pipelines up to meter regulating station and that the payment was made before the commencement of gas supply and, therefore, the expenditure being capital in nature cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. 3. The CIT(A), however, allowed the asssessee's appeal on the ground that the expenditure was incurred as an integral part of the profit earning process and not for acquisition of an asset of a permanent character. Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:01:27
3 itxa1321-10 4. The Tribunal while affirming the order of CIT (A) held that by paying the impugned charges to Mahanagar Gas Ltd., the assessee did not acquire any right or control over the gas facility. The Tribunal held that the facilities served the sole purpose of supplying the gas to the assessee's work and, therefore, it was an integral part of the profit earning process and facilitated in carrying on the assessee's business more efficiently without giving any enduring benefit to the assessee. The Tribunal relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT reported in [1980] 3 Taxman 69 (SC), L.H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills (P) Ltd. V/s. C.I.T., U.P. reported in [1980] 125 I.T.R.293 (S.C.) and the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Excel Industries Ltd. reported in [1980] 122 I.T.R. 995 (Bom), which is also affirmed by the Apex Court. 5. It is contended by the counsel for the revenue that the payments made by the assessee to Mahanagar Gas Ltd. were in respect of assets which were intended to give enduring benefit to the assessee. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. (supra) an expenditure even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit may be on revenue account. In the case of Excel Industries Ltd. (supra) this Court has held that payments made by an assessee to the Electricity Board to get electricity by providing an overhead service line Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:01:27
4 itxa1321-10 would be revenue expenditure. In the present case, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the assets remained the property of Mahanagar Gas Ltd. and that the sole object of payment was to get gas to facilitate the manufacturing activity carried on by the assessee. In these circumstances, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (MRS. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA , J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:01:27 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026