2011 (12) TMI 188 - AT - Income Tax

Renovation expenses lease building capital expenditure vs revenue expenditure Held that - Assessee has not made any construction of structure or carried out any work in the form of renovation or extension, improvement of the building. The building that was taken on lease remained intact. What has been done was only to create a better working environment. Further, agreement between the assessee and the lessor in Clause7 (e) specifically provides that the repairs shall be carried out only by the lessee subject to permission of lessor. Therefore, the expenses are allowable u/s.30(a)(i) of the Act. We are also of the view that the expenses in question are allowable u/s.37(1) of the Act Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disputed addition of renovation expenses as capital expenditure.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-3, Mumbai relating to AY 01-02, disputing the deletion of an addition made by the AO of Rs. 50,43,127 on account of renovation expenses claimed as revenue expenses by the assessee. The original Assessment Order was reopened on the ground that the renovation expenses were capital in nature. The assessee, a solicitor, argued that the renovation works were carried out in rented premises and did not result in enduring benefits. The Assessee relied on various legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, to support the contention that the expenses were revenue in nature. The CIT(A) accepted the submissions, emphasizing that the expenses on improving the rented premises could not assume the character of capital expenditure. The CIT(A) referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support the conclusion that the renovation expenses were revenue expenses.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of Sec. 30(a)(i) of the Act, distinguishing between 'repairs' and 'current repairs'. It was inferred that a tenant undertaking repair costs should be allowed deductions, even if the repairs were of a capital nature, as long as they were related to the commercial activity of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Agreement between the Assessee and the lessor specified that repairs could only be carried out by the lessee with the lessor's permission, making the expenses allowable under Sec. 30(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal also found the expenses to be allowable under Sec. 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the expenses did not involve construction or structural changes but aimed to create a better working environment. The Tribunal cited the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other legal precedents to support the assessee's claim that the expenses were revenue in nature and should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a previous case involving a sophisticated communication system, emphasizing that the expenses in question were related to electrical wiring, tiling, and plastering, making them allowable as revenue expenditure and repairs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, affirming the decision that the renovation expenses claimed by the assessee were revenue expenses and not capital expenditure.