2023 (10) TMI 515 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of expenses - renovation and repair expenses partly capitalized in the books of account of the Assessee and payment made to consultancy and supervision of interior d cor of the existing hotel of the Assessee under renovation and refurbishment - whether not the revenue expenditure admissible u/s 37? - treatment of expenses incurred on renovation and refurbishment of Hotel - HELD THAT - As expenses initially capitalized and was claimed as revenue expenditure for the first time before the Tribunal and forms part of the additional grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal preferred before the Tribunal, it would stand remanded to the AO for examination of the character and nature of the expenses incurred, having regard to the principles adverted to 2023 (10) TMI 467 - DELHI HIGH COURT the instant appeal is disposed of with the following directions, as the view taken in the said appeal will apply mutatis mutandis to the instant case as well Appellant/assessee will be entitled to claim the deduction, as, in our opinion, it is in the nature of revenue expenditure.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 1993-94. The substantial questions of law framed include the correct treatment of "renovation and repair" expenses and the payment made to an interior architect for consultancy and supervision under "renovation and refurbishment."

Treatment of "renovation and repair" expenses:
The AO disallowed expenses incurred on "renovation and refurbishment" by the appellant/assessee. The CIT(A) deleted a portion of the disallowance and sustained another portion related to specific items. The Tribunal disallowed the entire expenditure on "repairs and renovation," including expenses initially capitalized by the appellant/assessee. However, following a similar judgment in another case, the High Court allowed the deduction of Rs. 3,64,11,478 incurred on renovation, refurbishment, and repairs as revenue expenditure.

Payment to interior architect for consultancy:
The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the AO regarding the payment of Rs. 2,81,525 to the interior architect. The High Court, in line with its decision in another case, allowed this payment as a deduction, considering it to be in the nature of revenue expenditure.

Additional grounds raised before the Tribunal:
An additional amount of Rs. 10,43,12,000, initially capitalized by the appellant/assessee and claimed as revenue expenditure for the first time before the Tribunal, was also discussed. The High Court remanded this amount to the AO for further examination based on the principles established in a previous judgment.

Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant/assessee, allowing deductions for both the "renovation and repair" expenses and the payment to the interior architect. The appeal was disposed of with directions for the treatment of the additional amount claimed before the Tribunal, which was remanded to the AO for further examination.