2013 (7) TMI 619 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of expenses capital or revenue - improvement towards furniture in the renting premises - tenancy rights - claim of 1/5 of the expenditure every year - Whether the expenses incurred by the assesse would be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure and would be eligible for deduction or not Held that - The expenditure incurred by the assessee canot be treated as capital expenditure and is of revenue in nature the assesse would also be eligible for getting deductions towards the tenancy rights - the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the submissions of the appellant while upholding the orders of the lower authorities and the order of the Tribunal was perverse and unsustainable - Court relied upon the judgement of CIT v/s ASSOCIATED CEMENT Cos. LTD. (1988 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court) - the payment made by the appellant to the vendor which resulted in the acquisition of no asset or right would still be treated as revenue expenditure - Tribunal was erred in not allowing the amount paid by the appellant as revenue expenditure in the A.Y. 1997-98 - the Tribunal was not right in disallowing 1/15th of the payment for the relevant year as originally claimed by the appellant appeal decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of deductions by Assessing Authority for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99.
2. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Bangalore.
3. Dismissal of appeal by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
4. Justification of the Tribunal in upholding lower authorities' orders.
5. Determination of whether the payment made by the appellant would be considered capital expenditure.
6. Allowance of Rs.55 lakhs as revenue expenditure for the assessment year 1997-98.
7. Consideration of 1/15th of the payment of Rs.55 lakhs as claimed by the appellant.

Analysis:

1. The appellant purchased a running Hotel business and claimed deductions for expenditure towards tenancy rights. The Assessing Authority disallowed the deductions, considering the expenditure as capital in nature. The Appellate Authority and Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision.

2. The appellant, dissatisfied with the Assessing Authority's decision, appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Bangalore. However, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original decision disallowing the deductions.

3. Further aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which also dismissed the appeal without appreciating the appellant's contentions, leading to the current appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. The High Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the orders of the lower authorities. It was established that the appellant's expenditure towards tenancy rights should be treated as revenue expenditure, not capital, based on the terms of the agreement and the nature of the transaction.

5. The Court referenced a relevant judgment to support its decision, emphasizing that the expenditure did not result in the creation of a capital asset. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the deduction for the tenancy right expenditure, contrary to the decisions of the lower authorities.

6. The substantial questions of law framed in the appeal were analyzed, and the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and allowing the appeal. The Court concluded that the expenditure incurred should be considered revenue expenditure, entitling the appellant to the deductions claimed.

7. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the treatment of the expenditure towards tenancy rights as revenue expenditure.