9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 961 - AT - Income TaxNature of expenditure - expenditure on workshop building - permanent structure or temporary structures -depreciation at the rate applicable to buildings allowed - HELD THAT -The impugned issue has been considered by the larger Bench of jurisdictional High Court of Kerala in the case of Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (5) TMI 472 - KERALA HIGH COURT wherein held whether an expenditure incurred by the assessee is a capital expenditure or revenue expenditure is to be decided on the facts of each case by applying the relevant tests - we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Issues:
1. Constructive grounds raised by revenue against the order of CIT(A). 2. Treatment of expenditure on workshop building and deduction of fee paid to Registrar of Companies. 3. Nature of structures as temporary or permanent for depreciation purposes. 4. Applicability of judicial precedents in determining capital or revenue expenditure. 5. Interpretation of Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue 1: Constructive grounds raised by revenue against the order of CIT(A): The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order dated 27.1.2015 on various grounds, including opposition to law, weight of evidence, and circumstances of the case. The revenue sought to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore that of the AO. Issue 2: Treatment of expenditure on workshop building and deduction of fee paid to Registrar of Companies: The original income tax assessment under section 143(3) was reopened to treat the workshop building expenditure as a permanent structure for depreciation purposes. The AO disallowed the deduction of fee paid to Registrar of Companies. The CIT(A) observed that the structures were not permanent and allowed the deduction based on judicial precedents. Issue 3: Nature of structures as temporary or permanent for depreciation purposes: The AO treated the structures as permanent, disallowing the excess depreciation claimed. The CIT(A) disagreed, citing the nature of the construction and the leasehold premise. The decision of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court supported the CIT(A)'s view, leading to the deletion of the addition made by the AO. Issue 4: Applicability of judicial precedents in determining capital or revenue expenditure: The Tribunal recalled its earlier dismissal of the appeal based on the tax effect, as it fell under the exempted category of the relevant circular. The Tribunal considered the decision of the larger Bench of the Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case and concluded in favor of the assessee based on the applicable legal principles. Issue 5: Interpretation of Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in a similar case to determine whether the expenditure in question should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure. Following the legal principles established in the cited case, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal based on the precedents and legal interpretations discussed, finding in favor of the assessee regarding the treatment of the expenditure and depreciation claimed.
|
