9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee firm is of capital nature or allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary: The High Court of Madras was presented with a question of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the nature of expenditure amounting to Rs. 37,390 incurred by an assessee firm running a hotel. The Income-tax Officer initially treated the expenditure as of capital nature, disallowing it in the firm's income computation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, stating that the expenditure resulted in an enduring benefit to the firm. However, the Tribunal later ruled that the expenditure was allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Act, as it was incurred wholly for the business purposes. The main issue was whether the expenditure constituted capital nature or was solely for business purposes. The Court analyzed the specific items of expenditure, such as putting up decorated mirrors, plaster-moulded roof decoration, fixing plywood panels, carpet, and replacements, totaling Rs. 37,390. It was observed that items like replacement of old hinges and frosted glass were petty replacements and not capital expenditure. Expenditure on beautifying the premises and maintaining a suitable atmosphere for customers was deemed necessary for the hotel business's operation. The Court concluded that the expenditure was not of enduring nature and was essential for attracting customers, thus classifying it as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act. In light of the nature of the business and the purpose of the expenditure, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee. The expenditure was considered allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court awarded costs to the assessee and concluded the judgment.
|
