Judgment :- K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. The assessee is on appeal in respect of the assessment year 1996-97. The following are the substantial questions of law raised for consideration at the time of admission of this Tax Case Appeal: 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee has acquired an enduring benefit and hence the payments should be capital in nature? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in remanding the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh even though the same was decided after proper reasoning?” “1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that expenditure incurred towards consultancy charges is capital in nature? 2. The assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of forgings. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee filed return of income, which was processed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) and the taxable income was determined after disallowing the claim for deduction. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of R & D expenses for deduction, as the said payment made to one G N S Consultancy for re-engineering was likely to result in enduring benefit to the assessee. According to the assessee, the said consultancy company was paid to cover the study on the following areas: (a) Business strategy (b) Competition and market needs (c) Customers viz., produce mix viz., volumes (e) Existing financial manufacturing norms (f) Targets for improvement (g) Production method and system including information technology (h) Restructuring and implementation of recommendation (i) Assessment of targets achieved (j) Recommendation for continuous monitoring targets and further improvement. Therefore, deduction was sought for by the assessee, claiming that the expenditure was revenue in nature. On the other hand, the Assessing Authority rejected the said claim, holding that the said expenditure was in the capital field and consequently, not entitled for deduction. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 4. The First Appellate Authority concurred with the Assessing Authority and rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction of the expenses on consultancy charges. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 4. The First Appellate Authority concurred with the Assessing Authority and rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction of the expenses on consultancy charges. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal, which remitted the matter to the First Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the issue afresh by seeing as to whether the assessee derived any enduring benefit by incurring such expenditure. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee is before us. 5. The only question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee, namely, the consultancy charges, is revenue or capital in nature. It is the case of the assessee that the said expenditure was made for the study on the areas which we have already extracted supra. A perusal of the areas, which the assessee is required to cover by such study and by making such expenditure, would only show that expenditure made on such areas could be only a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure, as found by the Assessing Authority. The Tribunal remitted the matter only for the purpose of seeing as to whether the assessee had derived any enduring benefit by incurring such expenditure. The very nature of the expenditure for the purpose of covering the study of those areas, which we had extracted in the earlier paragraph, would only show that the assessee has made the said expenditure only to carry on the business more efficiently or more profitably. Hence, the intention of bringing the same under the head "business" is justified and therefore, it has to be treated as business expenditure and not as capital expenditure. 6. As to how the expenditure incurred by the assessee is to be seen in the light of enduring benefit, has been considered by the Apex Court in the decision reported in [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC) (Commissioner of Taxes v. NchangaConsolidated Copper Mines Ltd.), wherein, it was observed that if the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably, the expenditure would be revenue in nature, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future. 7. 7. Likewise, in another decision of the Apex Court reported in [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.), it was held that the consistent guiding principles in matters of understanding an expenditure as capital or revenue in nature, is to find out the aim and object of the expenditure and the commercial necessities of making such an expenditure. These two decisions of the Apex Court were, in fact, followed by us in another decision made in Tax Case (Appeal) No.244 of 2006 dated 10.09.2012, to hold that the expenditure made therein was only revenue in nature. 8. By following the decisions of the Apex Court reported in [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC) (Commissioner of Taxes v. NchangaConsolidated Copper Mines Ltd.) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.) and also by considering the nature of areas which the assessee wanted to cover by the study and by making the consultancy expenditure, we have no hesitation in holding that the expenditure referred to above are to be treated as only revenue expenditure and not as capital expenditure. 9. It is also to be seen that the items of expenditure said to be covered under the consultancy charges are not disputed by the Revenue and that the Assessing Authority had also made a note of those areas of study. Therefore, in the absence of any dispute with regard to those areas of study for which the said expenses have been met with by the assessee, we see no reason to hold that this case would call for a remand. 10. As we have found that the very nature of the expenditure is only revenue, and that enduring benefit theory would also support the case of the assessee in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court referred to supra, there is no necessity for remitting the matter to the First Appellate Authority, as has been done by the Tribunal. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal stands allowed. No costs.