2015 (12) TMI 98 - AT - Income Tax

Expenditure incurred on partitions and structures for the leasehold building - CIT(A) treated as capital expenditure and granted depreciation at 15%, where the assessee claimed it as Revenue Expenditure - Held that - In the case of Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. vs. DCIT 2013 (2) TMI 450 - Madras High Court wherein it was held that the Expenditure incurred in respect of maintenance of leased premises is deductible as revenue expenditure . Similar view was also taken in the case of CIT vs. Ayesha Hospitals (P) Ltd 2006 (10) TMI 117 - MADRAS High Court wherein it was held that Expenditure incurred by assessee on painting relaying of damaged floors, partitions etc. in leasehold premises is allowable as revenue expenditure . - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of expenditure on partitions and structures for a leasehold building as capital or revenue expenditure.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the treatment of an expenditure of A3,89,670/- incurred on partitions and structures for a leasehold building. The assessee claimed the amount as revenue expenditure, while the Assessing Officer treated it as capital expenditure under Explanation 1 to sec 32 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer, stating that the expenditure was for improving the leased premises and therefore qualified as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation at 15%. The assessee contended that the expenditure was revenue in nature and appealed to the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the facts, the Tribunal referred to a similar case where expenditure on civil work for renovation was considered revenue expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized that the expenditure did not result in the creation of a new asset or alteration of the existing building's structure. Therefore, it concluded that the expenditure on repairs and maintenance, including interior decorations and office atmosphere modifications, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions to support its stance.

Additionally, the Tribunal cited decisions by the Jurisdictional High Court, which supported the deduction of expenditure on maintenance of leased premises and related interior works as revenue expenditure. Considering the consistent view taken in similar cases, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling in favor of treating the expenditure as revenue expenditure.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the expenditure on partitions and structures for the leasehold building should be treated as revenue expenditure. The judgment was pronounced in favor of the assessee on the basis of the consistent legal interpretations and precedents cited during the proceedings.