Itxa/1313/2016 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -15 v. Plus Paper Foodpack Ltd

Priya Soparkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1313 OF 2016 Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. Plus Paper Foodpack Ltd. --- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.--- … Appellant … Respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 31, 2019. P.C.:- 1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, raising following question for our consideration:- “Whether on the facts and in circumstances of thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right inholding that the expenses of Rs.1,59,97,466/-incurred by the assessee for expanding themanufacturing capacity at Baddi (HP) and shiftingVashi plant to Badlapur is revenue in nature asagainst the capital expenditure?” 2.The respondent-assessee is a limited company. During the period relevant to the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee had 233 itxa 1313-16-o incurred expenditure in expansion unit at Baddi (HP) and forshifting machinery and expanding unit at Badlapur. The revenueurges the expenditure was capital in nature against the claim ofthe assessee that the expenditure was revenue expenditure. 3.CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal both concurrently held thatthere was no setting of new unit or starting a new line of business.In one case, it was purely a case of expansion of existing unit andother case, it was a case of shifting of plant and machineryalready existing. 4.Under the circumstances, we do not find any error inview of the Tribunal confirming CIT (Appeals)'s order holdingthat the expenditure was revenue in nature. 5.In the result, Income Tax appeal is dismissed. (B.P.COLABAWALLA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….