9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 379 - HC - Income TaxCapital or Revenue Expenditure Hotel Expenditure on repair and maintenance of room whether the sum of Rs. 4,26,000/- which was incurred by the assessee on the repairs and maintenance of the rooms of the hotel was revenue expenditure? - In this case Rajasthan High Court-held that the Tribunal appears to be correct in concluding that the said amount ought to be treated as an expenditure and not as income, the appeal therefore is dismissed. Decision in favor of assessee against the revenue
Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred on the renovation and maintenance of a building can be treated as the acquisition of an asset for income tax purposes. Analysis: The High Court heard Income-tax Appeal No. 11 of 1999 filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had treated a sum of Rs. 4,26,000 spent by the respondent on repairs and maintenance of hotel rooms as an expenditure, not resulting in the acquisition of a new asset. The Court referred to a previous decision by a co-ordinate Bench in Income-tax Reference Application No. 4 of 1999, where it was held that expenses on renovation and maintenance should not be considered as income on the plea of asset acquisition, but as expenditure exempt from tax liability. The Court found that the appellant did not dispute that the amount was spent on room renovation, and therefore upheld the Tribunal's decision that the amount should be treated as expenditure, not income. The Court dismissed the appeal based on the precedent set by the Division Bench. In conclusion, the judgment clarified that expenses incurred on renovation and maintenance of a building should be treated as expenditure, not income for tax purposes. The decision was based on the principle established in a previous case, emphasizing that such expenses do not result in the acquisition of a new asset and therefore should not incur tax liability. The Court's ruling aligned with the interpretation that such expenses are to be considered as expenditure and not income, thereby dismissing the appeal brought by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.
|
