9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Expenditure incurred on replacement of carpet in the case of Hotel business - Revenue vs. Capital expenditure. 2. Expenditure on replacement of linen in the case of hotel business - Revenue vs. Capital expenditure. 3. Calculation of deduction under section 80HHD - Treatment of pure encashment. Analysis: Issue 1: The first issue revolves around whether the expenditure on replacing carpets in a hotel business should be classified as revenue or capital expenditure. The department argues for capital expenditure based on the nature of the asset, while the assessee contends it is revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, citing previous decisions and the frequent replacement requirement for carpets in the hotel industry. The Tribunal supported this view, emphasizing that carpets are not capital assets in this context, leading to the rejection of the department's appeal on this ground. Issue 2: Regarding the replacement of linen in the hotel business, the debate centers on whether this expenditure should be considered revenue or capital. The department argues for capital treatment, linking it to the initial outlay on linens, while the assessee asserts it is revenue expenditure due to the frequent replacement necessity. The Tribunal, aligning with the assessee, rejected the department's stance, emphasizing the functional nature of linens in a hotel and their integral role in income generation, leading to the dismissal of the department's appeal on this issue. Issue 3: The third issue pertains to the exclusion of pure encashment from the calculation of deduction under section 80HHD. The assessee, holding a restricted Moneychanger's License, provides foreign exchange services without earning a profit, leading to the argument that this activity should not impact the profit and loss account. The department, however, contends that these receipts should be included for the deduction calculation. The Tribunal supported the assessee's position, highlighting relevant case law and the lack of profit generation from the money-changing activity, ultimately rejecting the department's appeal on this ground as well. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) on all three issues, resulting in the dismissal of the department's appeal.
|
