1998 (2) TMI 77 - HC - Income Tax

Reference, Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Revenue Expenditure, Current Repairs, Enduring Nature

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee for repairing and modernizing the hotel is allowable as current repairs under section 31(1) or under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of determining whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee for repairing and modernizing the hotel is to be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87, and 1987-88. The assessee claimed the expenditure as revenue expenditure under section 31(1) of the Income-tax Act, while the Revenue contended that the modernization program should be considered capital expenditure due to the enduring benefit it provided. The key question was whether the expenditure was of a capital nature or revenue nature.

The court referred to a previous case where the assessee claimed a deduction for expenditure incurred on hotel premises, which was initially negatived by the Income-tax Officer as capital expenditure. However, the Tribunal allowed the deduction under section 37, emphasizing that the expenditure was wholly for the purpose of the business. The court held that some items were for beautification and maintenance, necessary for attracting customers, and were not of an enduring nature, thus allowing the deduction under section 37.

In the present case, the court considered the expenditure incurred by the assessee for repairing and modernizing the hotel to create a conducive atmosphere for the hotel business. Drawing on the rationale from the previous case, the court concluded that the expenditure was not of enduring nature and should be treated as revenue expenditure under section 37. Therefore, the court rejected the reference applications, stating that the expenditure falls under the category of revenue expenditure and should be allowed as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act.

Overall, the judgment clarifies the distinction between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in the context of repairing and modernizing business premises, emphasizing the need for expenditure to be necessary for the business purpose and not of an enduring nature to qualify as revenue expenditure under the Income-tax Act.