9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the expenditure (capital vs. revenue). 2. Deduction eligibility under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Expenditure (Capital vs. Revenue): The primary issue was whether the expenditure of Rs. 49,009 incurred by the assessee for converting a godown into an "A" class cinema theatre was of a capital nature or revenue nature. The Tribunal had concluded that the expenditure was of a revenue nature, permitting the deduction for the assessment year 1964-65. The Tribunal's rationale was that the expenditure was incurred after acquiring the lease and receiving possession of the property, and it was necessary for the business operations. However, the High Court disagreed with this view. The High Court emphasized that the expenditure was incurred to bring into existence an asset or advantage of enduring benefit, which is a hallmark of capital expenditure. The court noted that the expenditure was necessary to convert the godown into a cinema theatre, which provided an enduring benefit during the lease period. The court referenced the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Benarsidas Jagannath [1947] 15 ITR 185, which laid down broad principles for distinguishing capital expenditure from revenue expenditure, focusing on the creation of an asset or advantage of enduring benefit. The court also cited the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Sri Rama Talkies v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 63, which held that substantial improvements made to a building for enduring benefits are capital expenditures. The High Court concluded that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was of a capital nature because it was aimed at converting a godown into a cinema theatre, thus providing an enduring benefit. 2. Deduction Eligibility under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The second issue was whether the expenditure of Rs. 49,009 could be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 37(1) allows for the deduction of any expenditure (not being capital or personal expenses) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession. The High Court noted that it was common ground that the deduction was not claimed under the provisions of Section 30 (repairs) but under Section 37(1). The court observed that the expenditure was indeed incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. However, the court highlighted that the crucial factor was whether the expenditure was of a capital nature. The court reiterated that the expenditure was capital in nature because it was incurred to convert a godown into a cinema theatre, thereby creating an asset of enduring benefit. Consequently, the expenditure could not be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court also discussed the Orissa High Court decision in CIT v. J. N. Bhowmick [1978] 111 ITR 747, which allowed a similar expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, the High Court distinguished the present case from the Orissa High Court decision, emphasizing that the expenditure in the present case was directly related to converting a godown into a cinema theatre, which is a capital expenditure. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the expenditure of Rs. 49,009 incurred by the assessee was of a capital nature and not a revenue expenditure. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction was overturned, and the question referred was answered in the negative. Costs: The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the revenue.
|
