9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the amount incurred towards garden expenses in the factory compound of the company is allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved a public limited company that spent money on developing a garden in front of its factory and incurred an expenditure of &8377; 86,023, out of which &8377; 50,000 was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld this decision partially. The Tribunal referred the question of law under section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the garden expenses were related to the business and should be treated as revenue expenditure, while the Revenue contended otherwise. The Tribunal had initially held that the garden expenses were of capital nature since they were incurred simultaneously with other capital works. However, various legal precedents were cited to argue that expenses related to business activities, even if resulting in enduring benefits, can be considered revenue expenditure. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case was also referenced, where expenses on maintaining a garden for environmental reasons were allowed as business expenditure. The High Court noted that the garden expenses did not result in any gain or asset appreciation for the company but were aimed at creating a pollution-free environment. It was emphasized that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business purposes and not of a capital or personal nature. Therefore, the Court held that the Tribunal erred in disallowing the expenditure and ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the garden expenses as deductible under section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court also fixed the counsel fee for each side and concluded the judgment.
|
