2018 (7) TMI 2224 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of expenditure - expenditure incurred on the lease premises - revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - HELD THAT - CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case and judgment of Kerala High Court in Joyallukas India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (6) TMI 80 - KERALA HIGH COURT and in CIT v. HI Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (9) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT DELHI found that the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards renovation of rental premises is not acquisition of capital asset but for the purpose of business of the assessee therefore it has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. Since the CIT(Appeals) has followed the order of this Tribunal judgments of Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court and decided the issue accordingly this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the expenditure incurred on lease premises is a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai involved appeals by the Revenue against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for three independent assessees. The central issue in these appeals was determining whether the expenditure on lease premises should be classified as revenue or capital expenditure.

The Departmental Representative argued that the expenditure should be considered capital in nature under Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, as it was incurred to make the building functional for the retail business of the assessees. On the other hand, the assessees contended that the expenditure was for the expansion of their existing business and should be treated as revenue expenditure. They cited precedents and judgments to support their position.

After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the relevant material, the Tribunal found that the expenditure incurred by the assessees on the lease premises should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the expenditure could not be retrieved by the assessees after the lease period, and therefore, it did not amount to capital expenditure. The Tribunal referred to a judgment of the Kerala High Court and previous decisions in similar cases to support its conclusion.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who had ruled in favor of the assessees, stating that the expenditure was not for acquiring a capital asset but for the business purposes of the assessees. The Tribunal also mentioned that the lower authority had correctly followed the precedents and judgments in arriving at the decision.

Ultimately, all the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal, confirming the decision that the expenditure on lease premises should be treated as revenue expenditure. The judgment was pronounced on 12th July 2018 in Chennai.