2014 (6) TMI 170 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of expenses Capital or not - Purchases of timbers and laminations for repairs and maintenance of furniture and fixtures Held that - CIT(A) has rightly stated that considering the total block of furniture and fixtures amounting to Rs. 5.25 crores, the repairs and maintenance expenditure of Rs. 60 lakhs could not be stated to be unreasonable, particularly when the furniture and fixtures were being used for business centre - furniture and fixtures at business centre require inherently higher maintenance expenditure as business centres are used by a large number of people for commercial purposes resulting in higher wear-andtear of the furniture etc. - the assessee itself had capitalized a sum of Rs. 28 lakhs approximately on account of new furniture and fixture - Relying upon CIT vs. A.M. Singhvi 2007 (8) TMI 265 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - even if the substantial amount is spent on repairs and renovation of office premises taken on rent, it is to be allowed as revenue expenditure because no capital asset is acquired by the assessee thus, there was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the amount incurred on purchases of timbers and laminations for repairs and maintenance of furniture and fixtures is revenue in nature or capital expenditure.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2007-08. The main issue revolved around determining whether the expenses incurred by the assessee on repairs and maintenance of furniture and fixtures were revenue in nature or capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer contended that the expenditure was towards making new furniture and fixtures, thus should be treated as capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed a significant portion of the claimed expenditure, leading to an appeal by the assessee.

The Assessing Officer's decision was based on the premise that the expenses incurred by the assessee were for making new furniture and fixtures, which would provide enduring benefits. However, the assessee argued that the expenditure was necessary for running the business center and did not involve acquiring any capital asset. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

During the appeal hearing, the Departmental Representative supported the Assessing Officer's view that the expenditure was capital in nature. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the repairs and maintenance expenditure on furniture and fixtures, considering the total block value, was reasonable, especially given the nature of business centers where higher maintenance costs are inherent due to extensive commercial use.

The Tribunal also referred to a decision of the Honorable Rajasthan High Court, which held that expenses on repairs and renovation of rented office premises should be treated as revenue expenditure unless a capital asset is acquired. Based on this precedent and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal concluded that the expenditure in question was revenue in nature. As a result, the appeal of the department was dismissed, upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

In summary, the judgment clarified that the expenses incurred on repairs and maintenance of furniture and fixtures for running a business center were revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, as they did not result in the acquisition of any capital asset.