9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 572 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of renovation or maintenance expenditure of a part of the hotel building - revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - Held that - As relying on Comfort Living Hotels P. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2014 (3) TMI 585 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) mere increase in the room size due to inclusion of balcony area would not result in creation of any new asset or increased profit yielding capacity so as to render the expenditure capital in nature. In-fact, the benefit to the assessee accruing as a result of the impugned expenditure, though spread over a number of years, is certainly in the revenue field and therefore such an expenditure provides the assessee with an advantage in a commercial sense and therefore the expenditure has to be held to be revenue in nature, following the principles laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. (1980 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ). As a consequence, we therefore set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance and treat the expenditure of ₹ 1,44,03,077/- as revenue in nature in terms of section 37(1) of the Act. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved
1. Disallowance of expenditure incurred on renovation and maintenance of a hotel building. 2. Classification of expenditure as capital or revenue in nature. 3. Commercial expediency of the incurred expenditure. Detailed Analysis 1. Disallowance of Expenditure Incurred on Renovation and Maintenance of a Hotel Building The appellant, a company engaged in the business of running a hotel unit, claimed an expenditure of Rs. 1,58,21,689 under the head repairs and maintenance for the renovation of 33 executive rooms, waterproofing of the rooftop, and the restaurant and lobby area. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 1,44,03,077 of this expenditure, treating it as capital expenditure eligible for depreciation allowance, while allowing Rs. 14,18,612 as revenue expenditure. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that the entire expenditure should be classified as revenue expenditure. 2. Classification of Expenditure as Capital or Revenue in Nature The core issue is whether the expenditure on the renovation of the hotel rooms should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure. The appellant argued that the expenditure was necessary for maintenance and did not create any new asset, thus qualifying as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer, however, contended that the expenditure provided an enduring benefit to the assessee, thereby classifying it as capital expenditure. The tribunal noted that the expenditure did not result in the creation of any new asset, as even the Assessing Officer agreed that no new asset was brought into existence. The tribunal emphasized that the expenditure aimed at retaining and attracting customers by upgrading facilities and changing the ambience, which is a business necessity and thus falls within the revenue field. 3. Commercial Expediency of the Incurred Expenditure The appellant highlighted several commercial reasons for the renovation, including the need to maintain the hotel due to high rainfall, the necessity to update facilities to retain and attract customers, and the competition in the hotel industry. The tribunal acknowledged these reasons and noted that the expenditure was targeted at retaining regular customers and attracting new ones, which qualifies as a business necessity. The tribunal referenced the case of Comfort Living Hotels P. Ltd. vs. CIT, where the Delhi High Court held that increased seating capacity due to repairs did not result in the creation of a new asset, thus classifying the expenditure as revenue in nature. Conclusion The tribunal concluded that the expenditure incurred by the appellant on the renovation of the hotel rooms was revenue in nature. The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance and treat the expenditure of Rs. 1,44,03,077 as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 10th April 2015.
|
