1990 (4) TMI 75 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of investment allowance for kitchen equipment, vacuum cleaners, and refrigerators.
2. Addition made under section 43B for unpaid amounts.
3. Disallowance of consultancy fees expenditure.
4. Treatment of hotel building as a "plant" for depreciation.
5. Claim for extra shift allowance on the hotel building.

Analysis:

1. Investment Allowance Claim:
The assessee's appeal raised a ground regarding the claim of investment allowance for additions to kitchen equipment, vacuum cleaners, and refrigerators. The Tribunal rejected the claim based on consistent past decisions and upheld the order of the CIT(A) disallowing the investment allowance. The appeal was filed to keep the matter alive, but the claim was ultimately rejected.

2. Addition under Section 43B:
The appeal also involved an addition made by the IAC(A) concerning unpaid amounts such as sales tax, provident fund contribution, and E.S.I. contribution under section 43B. The IAC(A) added these amounts to the taxable income as they were not paid before the end of the accounting year. The CIT(A) confirmed this view. However, the Tribunal directed the ITO to verify the facts and figures before allowing the necessary relief to the assessee based on relevant decisions and considerations.

3. Disallowance of Consultancy Fees Expenditure:
Regarding the expenditure of Rs. 4,000 paid as consultancy fees to a consultancy organization, the ITO disallowed the expenditure for a new hotel project. The CIT(A) brought the expenditure under section 35D(1)(ii) and allowed 1/10th of the expenditure over ten years. The Tribunal held that the expenditure was revenue in nature and should be allowed in full in the assessment year under appeal, directing the IAC(A) to provide the necessary relief.

4. Treatment of Hotel Building as "Plant" for Depreciation:
The Revenue's appeal contested the treatment of the hotel building as a "plant" for depreciation purposes. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in treating the hotel building as a "plant" and allowing depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent based on earlier decisions in the assessee's own case.

5. Claim for Extra Shift Allowance:
The Revenue's appeal also raised the issue of extra shift allowance on the hotel building. The ITO rejected the claim, stating that a hotel building should be treated as a "building" and not eligible for extra shift allowance. The Tribunal considered various decisions and concluded that the claim for extra shift allowance on a hotel building must fail, as running a hotel in shifts was not applicable, unlike a factory. The order of the CIT(A) was reversed, and the claim was rejected.

In conclusion, both appeals were partially allowed based on the specific issues and grounds raised by the parties, with detailed analysis and considerations provided for each issue addressed in the judgment.