2004 (2) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

Depreciation Garden building - Maintenance of gardens - 1. Whether was right in holding that the garden building and the furniture thereon were modes of advertisement to the assessee-company and the assessee was entitled to depreciation thereon? 2. Whether Tribunal was right in holding the expenditure incurred on maintenance of gardens and depreciation on garden building, furniture and other accessories as deductible expenditure under section 37 read with sections 28 and 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - When the gardens were not maintained for the purpose of business, the Tribunal has committed an error again in allowing depreciation on the assets which form part of such gardens. In the result, we answer the questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the garden building and furniture were modes of advertisement to the assessee-company and entitled to depreciation?
2. Whether the expenditure on maintenance of gardens and depreciation on garden building, furniture, and accessories is deductible under the Income-tax Act, 1961?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved the assessment year 1971-72 where the assessee claimed expenses for garden maintenance at various locations. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses at Sawaimadhopur and Jaipur, stating they were not wholly for business purposes. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, considering the expenses not wholly business-related. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of direct business nexus but allowed the claim, emphasizing the impact on the company's image. However, the High Court found no justification for allowing expenses not wholly business-related, emphasizing that garden maintenance does not significantly impact business or profits. The Court held the Tribunal erred in allowing such expenses for business purposes.

Issue 2:
Regarding the garden maintenance expenses at Delhi, both the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concluded they were not related to the business. The High Court agreed with this finding, noting the absence of material correlating the expenses to business purposes. The Court upheld the Assessing Officer's and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decisions as not being perverse. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to allow depreciation on assets from non-business-related gardens was deemed erroneous by the High Court. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the Department and against the assessee, denying the deductions claimed.

In conclusion, the High Court held that expenses and depreciation related to garden maintenance not wholly for business purposes are not deductible under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized the need for a direct business nexus for such expenses to be allowable.