Holding

The construction expenditure is revenue expenditure and is deductible because it yields a long‑term rent saving and does not result in the acquisition of a capital asset.

Summary

Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. obtained a 39‑year lease on premises and, under the lease terms, demolished the existing structure and constructed a new building at its own cost, which legally belonged to the lessor. The company claimed the construction costs (Rs 1,62,835 and Rs 50,937) as deductible business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income‑Tax Act, arguing they were not capital outlay. The Income‑Tax Tribunal and the Madras High Court held the amounts to be revenue expenditure because the advantage obtained was a substantially reduced rent for the lease term, not the acquisition of a capital asset. The Revenue appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' view, stating that the expenditure was incurred to secure a long‑term lease at concessional rent, resulting in savings of revenue expenditure, and therefore it is deductible. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on constructing a building that legally belonged to the lessor is capital expenditure or revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961.
Whether such expenditure is allowable as a deduction in computing the assessee's income for the assessment years 1968‑69 and 1969‑70.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961s. 256(1), s. 37(1)

Subjects

Income Taxcapital expenditurerevenue expenditureleaseconstruction costSection 37Section 256rent savingdeduction

Judgment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A
TAMIL NADU II, MADRAS
V.

MADRAS AUTO SERVICE (P) LTD.

AUGUST 12, I 998
B
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.]

Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 37(1)

Income Tax-Capital or revenue expenditure- AYs 1968-69 and J969- C
70-Expenditure Incurred in constructing a new building not belonging to
assessee-Nature of-Tests to determine-Assessee obtained lease ofa premises
for 39 years-Assessee Constructed a new building to suit the purposes of
its business after demolishing the old building-Under the terms of the lease
the new building belonged to the lessor right from its cor1struction and not
to the assessee-However, assessee had the right to remain as tenant for 39 D
years on an extremely low rent-Held: Under such circumstances, are case
did not get any capital assets but made substantial savings in monthly rent
for 39 years-Hence, the amount spent for construction is revenue expenditure
and not capital expenditure.·

The respondent-assessee obtained on lease a premises for a period of E
39 years. During the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1968-
69 and 1969-70 the assessee, under the terms and conditions of lease, spent
certain sums in constructing a new building to suit the purpose of its
business after demolishing the old building. The new building right from its
construction belonged to the lessor. However, the assessee had the right to F
be a tenant for a period of 39 years on payment of an extremely low rent.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal treated the amount on construction
of the new building a revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure and
allowed a deduction in that respect to the assessee. The High Court upheld
the view of the Tribunal. Hence this appeal by the Revenue. G
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : I. In order to decide whether the amount spent on construction
of the new building is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, one has
to look at the expenditure from a commercial point of view. One has to keep
in view the advantage the assessee got by constructing a building, which H
1121
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A belonged to somebody else, and spending money for such construction. The
assessee got a long lease of a newly constructed building suitable to its own
business at a very concessional rent. The expenditure, therefore, was made
in order to secure a long lease of new and more suitable business premises
at lower rent. In other words, the assessee made substantial savings in
B monthly rent for a period of 39 years by expending these amounts. The
saving in expenditure was a saving in revenue expenditure in the form the
rent. Whatever substitutes for revenue expenditure should normally be
considered as revenue expenditure. Moreover, the assessee in the present
case did not get any capital asset by spending the said amounts. The assessee,
therefore, could not have claimed any depreciation. Looking to the nature of
C the advantage, which the assessee obtained, in a commercial sense, the
expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure. [1124-F-H)

Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. (P) ltd. v. CIT, 82 ITR 376; L.H. Sugar
Factory and Oil Mills Ltd. v. CIT 125 ITR 293; CIT v. Associated Cement
Companies ltd. 172 ITR 257 and C/Tv. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing
D Co. Ltd. 219 ITR 521 relied on.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 27 ITR 34, held inapplicable.

Atherton v. British Insulated and Helsby Cables ltd., (1925) 10 Tax
Cases 155, referred to.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6068 (NT) of
1983.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.82 of the Madras High Court
in T.C. No. 618of1977.
F
K.N. Shukla and (S. Rajappa,) for B.K. Prasad for the Appellant.

T.A. Ramchandran, Mrs. Janaki Ramchandran and Ms. H. Wahi for the
Respondents.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR. J. The assessee is a limited company
carrying on the business 0f sale of motor parts. Its head-office is at Madras.
It has a branch at Bangalore. Under an agreement of lease dated !st of
February, 1966, the assessee obtained from MIS. Hajira Comer and Mrs. Rabia
H Bai Razack a lease of premises Nos. 64 and 64/1 situated at Sri Narasimharaja
'·MADRAS AUTO SERVICE (P) LTD. [SUJATA V. MANOHAR. J.] 1123
Road, Bangalore for a period of 39 years commencing from 1st of January, A
1966. Under the terms and conditions of the lease, the lessee (that is to say
the assessee ), had the right to demolish at its own expense the existing
premises and appropriate to itself all the material thereof without paying to
the lessors any compensation and construct a new building thereon to suit
the purpose of their business as per the plan approved by the lessors. Under
B
Clause 2 of the lease deed, the lessee was required to pay a rent of Rs. 1000
per month for the first fifteen years, Rs. 1500 per month for the next ten years,

- "
Rs. 1650 per month for the next ten years and Rs. 2000 per month for the
remaining years. The lease deed further provided that the new construction
shall, right from the commencement of the work, be the property of the
lessors; and upon completion of the work of construction the lessee will have c
only the right to be a tenant for a period of 39 years under the existing lease
subject to the payment of rent and observation of other terms and conditions
of the lease. The lessee shall not be entitled under any circumstances for any
compensation whatsoever on account of its putting up the new construction
in the place of the old.
D
Acting under the lease agreement the assessee invested a sum of Rs.
1,62, 835 in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1968/69 and Rs.
50, 937 during the succeeding year in constructing a new building on the said
land. The assesee claimed before the Income-tax Officer the expenditure of the
said sums of Rs. 1, 62,835 and Rs. 50, 937 in the relevant assessment years E
as capital loss. In the alternative, the assessee claimed depreciation on capital
investment; in the alternative, the assessee claimed deduction of the payments
as business expenditure or as extra rent for the lease. Ultimately, the Income-
tax Tribunal has held that the expenditure of the said two amounts for the
construction of a new building is in the nature of business expenditure for
proper carrying on of the business of the assessee. The Tribunal has, therefore,
F
.,,
treated these amounts as revenue expenditure and allowed a deduction in that
regard to the assessee. The claim of the department that the expenditure was
capital expenditure and was, therefore, not deductible was negatived by the
Tribunal.
G
On the application of the department the Tribunal referred the following
question to the High Court fot its determination under Section 256( I) of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 :
~
·'t

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the building expenses of H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A Rs. 1,62,835 are not liable to be taken into account as deductible ...
expenditure in arriving at the real income of the assessee fro the
assessment year 1968-690"

For the next assessment year, a similar question was raised in regard to
the second sum of Rs. 50,937. The High Court has, by the impugned judgment,
B upheld the view of the Tribunal and has held that the two amounts constitute
revenue expenditure for the concerned assessment years and are deductible
in order to arrive at the income of the assessee for the said assessment years.
The present appeals are filed by the department from the impugned judgment
of the High Court.

C The assessee in the present case ha~ spent the amounts in question in
order to construct a new building after demolishing the old building. The new
building, however, from inception was to belong to the lessor and not to the
assessee. The assessee, however, had the benefit of the existing lease in
respect of the new building at the agreed rent for a period of 39 years. The
D Tribunal has found, as a fact, that the rent as stipulated in the lease was
extremely low. It has said that the area of the building was somewhere about
7000 sq. ft. The rental rate for the area in which the building was situated was
much higher and would be not less than Rs. 12,000 as against which the
maximum rent the assessee would be paying was only Rs. 2,000 This
concessional rent was on account of the fact that the new building was
E constructed by the assessee at its own cost.
In order to decide whether this expenditure is revenue expenditure or
capital expenditure, one has to look at the expenditure from a commercial point
of view. What advantage did the asses see get by constructing a building
which belonged to somebody else and spending money for such construction?
F The assessee got a long lease of a newly constructed building suitable to its
own business at a very concessional rent. The expenditure, therefore, was T

made in order to secure a long lease of new and more suitable business
premises at a lower rent. In other words, the assessee made substantial
savings in monthly rent for a period of 39 years by expending these amounts.
G The saving in expenditure was saving in revenue expenditure in the form of
rent. Whatever substitutes for revenue expenditure should normally be
considered as revenue expenditure. Moreover, assessee in the present case
did not get any capital asset by spending the said amounts. The assessee,
therefore, could not have claimed any depreciation. Looking to the nature of
the advantage which the assessee obtained in a commercial sense, the
H expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure.
C.I.T. v. MADRAS AUTO SERVICE (P) LTD. [SUJATA V. MANOHAR. J.] 1125

The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue A
expenditure in our country was laid down by this Court in Assam Bengal
Cement Co. Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, (27 ITR 34).
In that case, the appellant-company had acquired from the Government of
Assam lease of certain lime-stone quarries for a period of 20 years for the
purpose of manufacture of cement. The lessee had, inter alia, agreed to pay
B
an annual sum during the whole period of the lease as a protection fee and
in consideration of that payment, the lessor undertook not to grant to any
person any lease, permit or prospecting licence for lime-stone. This Court
examined tests laid down in various cases for distinguishing between capital
expenditure and revenue expenditure. One of the standard tests now in use
was laid down in the case of Atherton v. British Insulated and He/shy C
Cables Ltd, (1925) IO Tax. Cases 155. It said : "When an expenditure is
made, not only once and for all but with a view to bringing into existence an
asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, I think that there
is very good reason (in the absence of special circumstances leading to an
opposite conclusion) for treating such an expenditure as properly attributable D
not to revenue but to capita." Whether by spending the money any advantage
of an enduring nature has been obtained or not will depend upon the facts of
,. each case. Moreover, as the above passage itself provides, this test would
not apply if there are special circumstances pointing to the contrary. This
Court in the above case summarised the tests as follows :(p. 44) :
E
I. Outlay is deemed to be capital when it is made for the initiation
of a business, for extension of a business, or for a substantial
replacement of equipment.

2. Expenditure may be treated as properly attributable to capital when
it is made not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into F
existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a
trade ........... !f what is got rid of by a lump sum payment is an annual
business expense chargeable against revenue, the lump sum
payment should equally be regarded as a business expense, but if
the lump sum payment brings in a capital asset, then :hat puts the G
business on another footing altogether.

3. Whether for the purpose of the expenditure, any capital was
withdrawn, or, in other words, whether the object of incurring the
expenditure was to employ what was taken in as capital of the business.
Again, it is to be seen whether the expenditure incurred was part of H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] 3 S.C.R.

A the fixed capital of the business or part of its circulating capital.

(underlining ours)

Relying upon the second test enumerated above, learned counsel for
the appellant has submitted that the assessee got enduring benefit of a capital
B nature by spending the amount because the assessee obtained a new building
for a period of 39 years. The difficulty, however, in the present case, arises
from the fact that this building was never to belong to the assesseee. Right
from inception, the building was of the ownership of the lessor. Therefore, by
spending this money, the assessee did not acquire any capital asset. The only
advantage which the assessee derived by spending the money was that it got
C the lease of a new building at a low rent. From the business point of view,
therefore, the assessee got the bem:fit of reduced rent. The High Court has,
therefore, rightly considered this as obtaining a business advantage. The
expenditure is, therefore, to be treated as revenue expenditure.

D Although there are a number of cases dealing with this question, we will
limit ourselves to examining a few cases where the assessee, by expending
money, created an asset of an enduring nature. However, the asset so created
_did not belong to the assessee. In such a situation the courts have held that
the expenditure was for better carrying on of the business of the assessee
and could be allowed as revenue expenditure, looking to the circumstances
E of each of those cases. Thus in Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. P. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi (82 !TR 3 76) the assessee company
was carrying ori the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. It paid to the
Cane Development Council certain amounts by way of contribution for the
construction and development of roads between various sugarcane-producing
centres and the sugar factories of the assessee. The roads remained the
F property of the Government. This Court held that the expenditure was not of
a capital nature and had to be allowed as an admissible deduction in computing
the profits of the assessee's business. The expenditure was incurred for the
purpose of facilitating the running of the assessee's motor vehicles and
other means employed for transportation of sugarcane to its factories.
G
In the case of L.H. Sugar Factory and Oils Mills (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Income-tax, UP., (125 ITR 293), the assesee was carrying on the business
of manufacture and sale of sugar. It has its factory in U.P. The assessee paid
a contribution towards meeting the cost of construction of roads in the area
around its factory under a sugarcane development scheme. The question was
H whether this amount was deductible in computing the assessee's profits. The
C.l.T. v. MADRAS AUTO SERVICE (P) LTD. [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 1127
Court held that it was. Because although the advantage secured was of long A
duration, it was not an advantage in the capital field because no tangible or
intangible asset was acquired by the assessee; .nor was there any addition
to or expansion of the profit making apparatus oft he assessee. The amount
was contributed for the purpose of facilitating the business of the assessee
and making it more efficient and profitable. It was, therefore, revenue B
expenditure.

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-Iv. Associated
Cement Companies Ltd. ( 172 !TR 257) the respondent-company entered into
an agreement to supply water to the municipality and provide water pipelines
as also to supply electricity for street lighting and put up a transmission line C
for that purpose. The assessee also agreed to concrete the main road from
the factory to the railway station. The amounts expended for these. purposes
were held to be revenue expenditure since the installations and accessories
were the assets of the municipality and not of the assessee. The expenditure,
therefore, did not result in creating any capital asset for the company. The
advantage secured by the respondent was immunity from liability to pay D
municipal rates and taxes for a period of 15 years. This Court said that had
these liabilities been paid, the payments would have been on revenue account.
Therefore, the advantage secured was in the field of revenue and not capital.
In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bombay Dyeing and
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (219 ITF 521) the company contributed to the State E
Housing Board certain amounts for construction of tenements for its workers.
The tenements remained the property of the Housing Board. It was held that
the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively on the welfare of the
employees and, therefore, constituted legitimate business expenditure. As the
assessee company acquired no ownership rights in the tenements, this Court
said that the expenditure was incurred merely with a view to carry on the F
business of the company more efficiently by having a contented labour force.

All these cases have looked upon expenditure which did bring about
some kind of an enduring benefit to the company as a revenue expenditure
when the expenditure did not bring into existence any capital asset for the G
company. The asset which was created belonged to somebody else and the

- ~
company derived an enduring business advantage by expending the amount.
In all these cases, the expense has been looked upon as having been made
for the purpose of conducting the business of the assessee more profitably
or more successfully. In the present case also, since the asset created by
spending the said amounts did not belong to the assessee but the assessee H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.CR.

A got the business advantage of using modern premises at a low rent, thus
saving considerable revenue expenditure for the next 39 years, both the
Tribunal as well as the High Court have rightly come to the conclusion that
the expenditure should be looked upon as revenue expenditure.

In the premises, the appeals are dismissed with costs.
B
v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.