Expenditure on tooling (dyes, moulds, jigs, fixtures) necessitated by production wear and tear is revenue in nature; appellate authorities may entertain fresh claims for deductions not raised in original returns, subject to verification.

O R D E R

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 13/03/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2021-22.

2. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: –

“i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that expenditures on dies and moulds are revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure, ignoring the fact that dies & moulds deliver benefits of enduring nature and therefore is in the nature of capital expenditure.

ii) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that expenditure on Jigs & Fixtures is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure, ignoring the fact that Jigs & Fixtures deliver benefits of enduring nature and therefore is in the nature of capital expenditure.

iii) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to verify and allow an additional claim of 1,04,79,969/- towards stamp duty as part of the cost of acquisition for computing short-term capital gains, when such claim was not made in the original return of income nor through a revised return, in contravention of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC)?"

iv) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction in respect of proportionate premium paid on leasehold land without appreciating the fact that the same constitutes capital expenditure and the claim has not been made in original return filed?

v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the La. CIT(A) was erred in in allowing the deduction of Rs. 16,15,24,570/- claimed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as "Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts and Advances", despite the same not having been claimed in the original return of income and in the absence of actual write-off of individual debtor balances as mandated under Section 36(4)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

vi) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify and allow the claim of deduction of Rs. 1,35,717/- towards income tax paid in Chile, despite the fact that the said claim was not made by the assessee in the original return of income or by way of a revised return, and was raised only during the course of assessment proceedings.

vii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in deleting the deduction in respect of software expenses without appreciating the fact that the same constitutes capital in nature?”

3. The issue arising in Ground No.1, raised in Revenue’s Appeal, pertains to the nature of expenditure incurred by the assessee on dyes and moulds.

4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from the record are: The assessee is engaged in th