Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 894 - AT - Income TaxExpenditure incurred on improvement/additions to leasehold property - treated as capital or revenue expenditure - Held that - In the present case the assessee has incurred expenditure on construction of sheds etc. on leasehold land for advancement of its business. The lease period in the present case is 3 years which is further extendable for the period of 3 years. Thus, the total period of lease is 6 years only. The assessee has not received any advantage of enduring nature, no new asset has come into existence for the assessee. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd.(2009 (3) TMI 587 - Gujarat High Court) while dealing with similar controversy held that lease rental paid on 99 years lease is allowable as Revenue expenditure. In the said case, the assessee had made payment of lease charges to GIDC and claimed the same as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same on the ground that the assessee had acquired a benefit of enduring nature in the form of use of land for a period of 99 years, the land has been transferred through a registered deed involving transfer of immovable property, thus, the assessee has acquired fixed asset. CIT(Appeals) upheld the order of Assessing Officer. The Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT(Appeals). In appeal by the Department, the Hon ble High Court upheld that the findings of the Tribunal, that the land in question was not acquired by the assessee. That merely because the deed was registered the transaction in question would not assume a different character. The lease rent was very nominal. By obtaining the land on lease the capital structure of the assessee did not undergo any change. The assessee only acquired a facility to carry on business profitably by paying nominal lease rent. Thus, from the analysis of the above judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court it can be safely concluded that the Special Bench decision in the case of JCIT Vs. Mukund Ltd. (2007 (2) TMI 358 - ITAT MUMBAI) cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. The expenditure incurred by the assessee on construction of storage structure etc. has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred on improvement/additions to leasehold property should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in not allowing proportionate expenditure incurred on leasehold improvements over the lease period. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Nature of Expenditure on Leasehold Property The primary issue in this appeal is whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on improvements/additions to leasehold property should be classified as capital or revenue expenditure. The assessee claimed the expenditure as revenue, while the Department treated it as capital in nature. Arguments by the Assessee: The assessee argued that the improvements made on the leasehold land were for the advancement of its business and did not create any new capital asset. The ownership of the structures remained with the lessor, and no enduring benefit was derived by the assessee. The assessee cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. and the Madras High Court's decision in CIT Vs. TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. to support its claim that the expenditure should be treated as revenue. Arguments by the Revenue: The Department argued that under Explanation 1 to Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, any expenditure incurred on the construction of structures on leased property should be capitalized, and the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on such improvements. The Department cited several cases, including CIT Vs. Khimline Pumps Ltd. and JCIT Vs. Mukund Ltd., to support its position. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal noted that Explanation 1 to Section 32 applies to buildings taken on lease and not to land. The Tribunal referred to the Madras High Court's decision in CIT Vs. TVS Lean Logistics Ltd., which clarified that construction on leased land for business purposes should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd., which held that expenditure incurred for business advantage without acquiring a capital asset should be treated as revenue expenditure. In the present case, the assessee constructed storage sheds and other structures on leased land for business convenience. The Tribunal concluded that the structures did not belong to the assessee, and no new asset was acquired. Therefore, the expenditure should be treated as revenue in nature. Issue 2: Proportionate Expenditure Over Lease Period The assessee made an alternate prayer that the Assessing Officer erred in not allowing proportionate expenditure incurred on leasehold improvements over the lease period. Tribunal's Analysis: Given the conclusion that the expenditure is revenue in nature, the Tribunal did not need to address the alternate prayer for proportionate expenditure over the lease period. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on construction of storage structures should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal found that the facts of the cited cases by the Revenue were not applicable to the present case, as the assessee did not acquire any enduring benefit or new asset. Order: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the expenditure on leasehold improvements was to be treated as revenue expenditure. The order was pronounced on August 31, 2015.
|