I replaced worn out ring frames in my spinning mill as part of modernisation. Is that current repairs under section 31(i)?
No. The Supreme Court allowed the Department's appeals and held that replacing whole machines is not current repairs. The test under section 31(i) is not whether the spending is revenue or capital - that is the wrong question - but whether it preserves and maintains an already existing asset without bringing a new asset into existence or obtaining a new advantage. A ring frame is an independent machine with its own function, one of about 25 in a textile mill, and replacing three of them is substitution of an old asset by a new one. The Court also rejected the argument that the whole mill is one continuous process plant.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ (judgment by Kapadia, J)) on 2007-08-10, reported as (2007) 293 ITR 201; 2007 (7) SCC 298; 2007 AIR SCW 5196; AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 741; (2007) 9 SCALE 697; (2007) 7 Supreme 156; 2007 Tax LR 741; (2008) 202 Taxation 196. It bears on section 31(i), section 31, section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances matters.
This is the judgment that closed down the replacement-of-machinery claim that Tamil Nadu textile mills had been running for years, and it corrects a confusion that runs well beyond spinning mills. Practitioners had been arguing, and the High Court had accepted on the strength of a South India Textile Research Association report, that a mill is one integrated plant so that any machine within it is only a part. The Court rejected the premise and, more importantly, rejected the method: all repairs are not current repairs, and asking whether the outlay is revenue or capital does not answer the section 31(i) question at all. Because section 37(1) excludes what falls in sections 30 to 36, the scope of relief for repairs is delimited by section 31(i), and an assessee cannot fall back on section 37(1) merely because the expenditure has been found revenue in nature. The judgment also confines Mahalakshmi Textile Mills to its facts: replacement can be current repairs where the old parts are no longer available in the market or have run for fifty or sixty years, but that is an exception and not the rule.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The lead assessee is a textile mill manufacturing yarn. For the year ending 31 March 1993 it claimed Rs.97,95,755 and for the year ending 31 March 1994 Rs.77,84,047 as modernisation and replacement expenses. During the earlier year it had installed three ring frames costing Rs.23,99,855 and claimed the cost as revenue expenditure on the footing that they replaced old machinery which had become derelict. Its case was that the whole mill is a plant, the ring frame being one of about 25 machines making up one single process, so that replacement of a frame is replacement of part of the plant. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, holding that each ring frame is an independent machine capable of a specific function, that the entire mill is not one plant, and that replacing an old machine with a new one gave enduring benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim, and the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals, both treating the mill as a continuous integrated process. The Madras High Court affirmed by a common judgment of 29 April 2005 in a batch, relying on a report of the South India Textile Research Association that intermediate outputs cannot be sold or used separately and that a ring frame cannot work independently but only as part of a spinning unit. Other assessees in the batch had claimed for simplex machines, doubling machines, cone winders and card conversion equipment. The Department appealed.
The civil appeals were allowed with no order as to costs. The assessees were not entitled to claim allowance under section 31(i) as it stood at the relevant time. The Court held that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in treating the manufacturing process in a textile mill as one continuous integrated process, and that the High Court erred in relying on the SITRA report to hold the mill to be a plant for section 31(i). Each machine in a segment has an independent role and the output of each division differs. Repair implies the existence of a part of the machine which has malfunctioned; here it was not the assessee's case that a part needed repair, the entire machine having been replaced. Replacement of three ring frames was substitution of an old asset by a new one giving enduring advantage, and did not constitute current repairs. The Court also rejected the assessees' alternative plea that, the expenditure having been found revenue in nature by the three authorities below, deduction should be allowed under section 37(1). It expressly declined to express any opinion on the applicability of section 37(1), noting that certain appeals wrongly tagged with the batch which concerned that section would be decided separately.
The Court separated two questions the authorities below had run together. Section 31(i) grants an allowance for current repairs to machinery, plant or furniture used for the business, whether or not the assessee owns it. Repair involves renewal, but the legislature added the qualifying word current, and Chagla CJ's observation in New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co., approved in Ballimal Naval Kishore, supplies the test: what the expenditure really does must be to preserve and maintain an already existing asset, its object being neither to bring a new asset into existence nor to obtain a new or fresh advantage. All repairs are not current repairs. Because section 37(1) excludes expenditure falling within sections 30 to 36, the allowance for repairs is delimited by section 31(i), so even expenditure that is revenue in nature may fall outside it. The High Court had asked the wrong question, whether the outlay was revenue or capital, a test in any event not relevant for these years since the Explanation to section 31 came later. On the facts, the Court examined the manufacture of yarn segment by segment - blow room, carding, combing and onward - and held each machine to be independent with its own output, drawing an analogy with a dairy where heater and cooling plant are genuinely parts of one integrated process. The assessee's own balance sheet described the outlay as the purchase of a new asset. The Court added a reductio: on the assessee's argument each of the 25 machines could in turn be replaced and claimed under section 31(i), which would make the provision redundant. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills, where the Casablanca Conversion System was allowed, was distinguished on its findings - there the old type of replacement parts were not available in the market - and the Court noted that it had never defined the asset as the entire production system or described a mill as one integrated process. Finally, since the authorities below had assumed that revenue character equals current repairs and never applied the correct test, the concurrent findings could be interfered with.
To decide the applicability of Section 31(i) the test is not whether the expenditure is revenue or capital in nature, which test has been wrongly applied by the High Court, but whether the expenditure is "current repairs".
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Supreme Court allowed the Department's appeals and held that replacing whole machines is not current repairs. The test under section 31(i) is not whether the spending is revenue or capital - that is the wrong question - but whether it preserves and maintains an already existing asset without bringing a new asset into existence or obtaining a new advantage. A ring frame is an independent machine with its own function, one of about 25 in a textile mill, and replacing three of them is substitution of an old asset by a new one. The Court also rejected the argument that the whole mill is one continuous process plant. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ (judgment by Kapadia, J)) and bears on section 31(i), section 31, section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (2007) 293 ITR 201; 2007 (7) SCC 298; 2007 AIR SCW 5196; AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 741; (2007) 9 SCALE 697; (2007) 7 Supreme 156; 2007 Tax LR 741; (2008) 202 Taxation 196. This is the judgment that closed down the replacement-of-machinery claim that Tamil Nadu textile mills had been running for years, and it corrects a confusion that runs well beyond spinning mills. Practitioners had been arguing, and the High Court had accepted on the strength of a South India Textile Research Association report, that a mill is one integrated plant so that any machine within it is only a part. The Court rejected the premise and, more importantly, rejected the method: all repairs are not current repairs, and asking whether the outlay is revenue or capital does not answer the section 31(i) question at all. Because section 37(1) excludes what falls in sections 30 to 36, the scope of relief for repairs is delimited by section 31(i), and an assessee cannot fall back on section 37(1) merely because the expenditure has been found revenue in nature. The judgment also confines Mahalakshmi Textile Mills to its facts: replacement can be current repairs where the old parts are no longer available in the market or have run for fifty or sixty years, but that is an exception and not the rule. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Ask first whether what you replaced was a part of a machine or a whole machine; a whole machine with its own independent function will not pass section 31(i).
The lead assessee is a textile mill manufacturing yarn. For the year ending 31 March 1993 it claimed Rs.97,95,755 and for the year ending 31 March 1994 Rs.77,84,047 as modernisation and replacement expenses. During the earlier year it had installed three ring frames costing Rs.23,99,855 and claimed the cost as revenue expenditure on the footing that they replaced old machinery which had become derelict. Its case was that the whole mill is a plant, the ring frame being one of about 25 machines making up one single process, so that replacement of a frame is replacement of part of the plant. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, holding that each ring frame is an independent machine capable of a specific function, that the entire mill is not one plant, and that replacing an old machine with a new one gave enduring benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim, and the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals, both treating the mill as a continuous integrated process. The Madras High Court affirmed by a common judgment of 29 April 2005 in a batch, relying on a report of the South India Textile Research Association that intermediate outputs cannot be sold or used separately and that a ring frame cannot work independently but only as part of a spinning unit. Other assessees in the batch had claimed for simplex machines, doubling machines, cone winders and card conversion equipment. The Department appealed. The matter was decided on 2007-08-10 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ (judgment by Kapadia, J)). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The civil appeals were allowed with no order as to costs. The assessees were not entitled to claim allowance under section 31(i) as it stood at the relevant time. The Court held that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in treating the manufacturing process in a textile mill as one continuous integrated process, and that the High Court erred in relying on the SITRA report to hold the mill to be a plant for section 31(i). Each machine in a segment has an independent role and the output of each division differs. Repair implies the existence of a part of the machine which has malfunctioned; here it was not the assessee's case that a part needed repair, the entire machine having been replaced. Replacement of three ring frames was substitution of an old asset by a new one giving enduring advantage, and did not constitute current repairs. The Court also rejected the assessees' alternative plea that, the expenditure having been found revenue in nature by the three authorities below, deduction should be allowed under section 37(1). It expressly declined to express any opinion on the applicability of section 37(1), noting that certain appeals wrongly tagged with the batch which concerned that section would be decided separately.
The Court separated two questions the authorities below had run together. Section 31(i) grants an allowance for current repairs to machinery, plant or furniture used for the business, whether or not the assessee owns it. Repair involves renewal, but the legislature added the qualifying word current, and Chagla CJ's observation in New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co., approved in Ballimal Naval Kishore, supplies the test: what the expenditure really does must be to preserve and maintain an already existing asset, its object being neither to bring a new asset into existence nor to obtain a new or fresh advantage. All repairs are not current repairs. Because section 37(1) excludes expenditure falling within sections 30 to 36, the allowance for repairs is delimited by section 31(i), so even expenditure that is revenue in nature may fall outside it. The High Court had asked the wrong question, whether the outlay was revenue or capital, a test in any event not relevant for these years since the Explanation to section 31 came later. On the facts, the Court examined the manufacture of yarn segment by segment - blow room, carding, combing and onward - and held each machine to be independent with its own output, drawing an analogy with a dairy where heater and cooling plant are genuinely parts of one integrated process. The assessee's own balance sheet described the outlay as the purchase of a new asset. The Court added a reductio: on the assessee's argument each of the 25 machines could in turn be replaced and claimed under section 31(i), which would make the provision redundant. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills, where the Casablanca Conversion System was allowed, was distinguished on its findings - there the old type of replacement parts were not available in the market - and the Court noted that it had never defined the asset as the entire production system or described a mill as one integrated process. Finally, since the authorities below had assumed that revenue character equals current repairs and never applied the correct test, the concurrent findings could be interfered with. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "To decide the applicability of Section 31(i) the test is not whether the expenditure is revenue or capital in nature, which test has been wrongly applied by the High Court, but whether the expenditure is "current repairs"."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2007-08-10 and is reported as (2007) 293 ITR 201; 2007 (7) SCC 298; 2007 AIR SCW 5196; AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 741; (2007) 9 SCALE 697; (2007) 7 Supreme 156; 2007 Tax LR 741; (2008) 202 Taxation 196. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 31(i), section 31, section 37(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The civil appeals were allowed with no order as to costs. The assessees were not entitled to claim allowance under section 31(i) as it stood at the relevant time. The Court held that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in treating the manufacturing process in a textile mill as one continuous integrated process, and that the High Court erred in relying on the SITRA report to hold the mill to be a plant for section 31(i). Each machine in a segment has an independent role and the output of each division differs. Repair implies the existence of a part of the machine which has malfunctioned; here it was not the assessee's case that a part needed repair, the entire machine having been replaced. Replacement of three ring frames was substitution of an old asset by a new one giving enduring advantage, and did not constitute current repairs. The Court also rejected the assessees' alternative plea that, the expenditure having been found revenue in nature by the three authorities below, deduction should be allowed under section 37(1). It expressly declined to express any opinion on the applicability of section 37(1), noting that certain appeals wrongly tagged with the batch which concerned that section would be decided separately. It arises in Deductions & Disallowances matters, on section 31(i), section 31, section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India; S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ (judgment by Kapadia, J). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Do not build the claim on the expenditure being revenue in nature - the Court held that is the wrong test, and that a finding of revenue character does not by itself open section 37(1) either. Check how the item is shown in your own accounts. The Court held it against this assessee that the balance sheet described the outlay as purchase of a new asset. If the machine or its parts are genuinely no longer available in the market, or have run for decades, plead and prove that - it is the narrow Mahalakshmi Textile Mills exception the Court preserved. For later years, read section 31 with the Explanation inserted after these assessment years before relying on this judgment.
Still good law. A Supreme Court judgment of 10 August 2007 reported at (2007) 293 ITR 201, applying Ballimal Naval Kishore and New Shorrock Spinning. Its reasoning is expressly tied to section 31 as it stood for accounting years ending 31 March 1993 and 1994, the Court noting that the Explanation to section 31 was inserted later; the effect of that Explanation was not considered and has not been checked. No citator check for later authority was possible; only the judgment text was before me. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment decides only the section 31(i) question and expressly reserves the position under section 37(1), noting that appeals concerning that section had been wrongly tagged with this batch and would be decided separately. So it is no authority on whether replacement expenditure of this kind is deductible under section 37(1), and a reader must find the separate decision. The Court records that other assessees in the batch had claimed for simplex machines, doubling machines, cone winders and card conversion equipment, but gives no separate reasoning or figures for them; only the lead facts are set out. The exception the Court preserves - replacement where the old parts are not available in the market or have worked for 50 to 60 years - is stated without further definition. The text also does not say what depreciation, if any, was allowed on the machines once the revenue claim failed. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The civil appeals were allowed with no order as to costs. The assessees were not entitled to claim allowance under section 31(i) as it stood at the relevant time. The Court held that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in treating the manufacturing process in a textile mill as one continuous integrated process, and that the High Court erred in relying on the SITRA report to hold the mill to be a plant for section 31(i). Each machine in a segment has an independent role and the output of each division differs. Repair implies the existence of a part of the machine which has malfunctioned; here it was not the assessee's case that a part needed repair, the entire machine having been replaced. Replacement of three ring frames was substitution of an old asset by a new one giving enduring advantage, and did not constitute current repairs. The Court also rejected the assessees' alternative plea that, the expenditure having been found revenue in nature by the three authorities below, deduction should be allowed under section 37(1). It expressly declined to express any opinion on the applicability of section 37(1), noting that certain appeals wrongly tagged with the batch which concerned that section would be decided separately.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Can a pharmaceutical company deduct the cost of gifts given to doctors?
The whole disallowance rests on an Investigation Wing report. Is that enough?
I passed borrowed money to my sister concern interest-free. Can the AO disallow the interest I paid?
Can I deduct my provision for leave encashment in the year I make it, or only when I pay?