DCIT, CHENNAI vs. RAMASAYS CORPORATION (P) LIMITED, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 282/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed the claim as revenue expenditure, following its own previous orders for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 in the assessee's own case.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's claim for cost of spares and tools as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer had disallowed this claim, treating it as capital expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether the cost of spares and tools used for producing parts is to be treated as revenue or capital expenditure.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH

Hearing: 24.04.2017Pronounced: 31.05.2017

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी िड.एस. सु�दर �संह, लेखा सद�य केसम� BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 282/Mds/2017 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Ramasays Corporation (P) Income Tax, v. Limited, Corporate Circle 5(1), No.18, L.G.N. Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. PAN: AADCR8596A (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri M.M. Bhusari, CIT ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Philip George & Shri D. Palanivel, Advocates सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.04.2017 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai dated 28.10.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

There was a delay of 11 days in filing this appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and Ld. representative. We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3.

Shri M.M. Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee claimed the cost of spares and tools as revenue expenditure. The Ld.AO disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the tools and spares are used for producing the parts. Therefore, the tools and spares are acquired for using the same as profit earning apparatus. Hence the cost of acquisition of tools and spares has to be treated as capital expenditure. Referring to the order of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12, the Ld.DR submitted that an appeal was already filed before the Hon’ble High Court. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) is not correct in following the order of this Tribunal.

4.

We heard Shri Philip George and Shri Palanivel, the Ld. counsel for the assessee also. According to the Ld. counsel what was purchased by the assessee is only spares and tools. The cost of such purchase was allowed as revenue expenditure for the assessment year 2011-12 by this Tribunal. The order of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12 was followed for the assessment year 2012-13 also.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. The assessee claimed the cost of acquisition of spares and tools as revenue expenditure. This Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 examined this issue and found that it is allowable as revenue expenditure. The very same order of this Tribunal was followed in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. Hence the same is confirmed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on 31st May, 2017 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →