Though s. 92CA enables the AO to refer an international transaction to the TPO if he considers it “necessary or expedient” to do so, Instruction No. 3 dated 25.5.2003 makes it mandatory for the AO to make a reference to the TPO if the aggregate value of the international transaction exceeds Rs. 5 crores. This Circular, having been issued u/s 119, is binding on the AO. The AO ought to have referred the matter to the TPO having regard to the fact that Specialized Cell was created to deal with complicated and complex issues arising out of the transfer mechanism. The AO’s omission to follow the binding Circular amounted to making assessment without conducting proper inquiry and investigation and resulted in the order becoming “erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue”. The observations in Sony India 288 ITR 52 (Del) (while upholding the constitutional validity of the aforesaid Circular) that the said Circular was a “Guideline” which did not take away the discretion of the AO was made in a different context

The question that has to be considered is whether the expenditure is incurred for initiating the business or for removing an obstruction to facilitate an existing business. Expenditure incurred for running the business or working it, with a view to produce profits is in the nature of revenue expenditure. The aim and object of the expenditure determines its character and not the source and manner of its payment. The fact that the expenditure is ‘once and for all’ is not conclusive. While expenditure for acquisition of a source of income would ordinarily be capital expenditure, expenditure which merely enables the profit making structure to work more efficiently would be in the nature of revenue expenditure. Expenditure incurred to fine tune trading operations to enable the management to run the business effectively, efficiently and profitably leaving the fixed assets untouched would be an expenditure of a revenue nature even though the advantage obtained may last for an indefinite period. On facts, the land belonged to the assessee and the amount paid for removal of encroachers was not for acquisition of new assets. The payment was made to facilitate its smooth functioning of the business i.e. in relation to carrying on the business in a profitable manner (Airport Authority of India 303 ITR 433 (Del) reversed; Bikaner Gypsum vs. CIT 187 ITR 39 (SC) followed)