9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 734 - HC - Income TaxNature of expenditure - expenses on repairs/ renovates - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT - The judgement of Hi Line Pens 2008 (9) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT DELHI discusses the nature of expenses which are substantially similar to those of the appellant. The Judgement of M/s instalment Supply 1983 (9) TMI 67 - DELHI HIGH COURT states that in the absence of a capital asset being created the nature of the expense for business has to be of a revenue nature. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments the expenses indicated are held to be expenses of revenue nature and allowable revenue expenditure to the appellant. We find that the findings recorded by the CIT (Appeal) as affirmed by the Income Tax appellate Tribunal are findings of fact based on consideration of relevant material on record. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal have came to the conclusion that by incurring the aforesaid expenditure no new asset has come into existence. No substantial question of law.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of expenditure as revenue or capital. 2. Eligibility of deductions under Section 37(1) and Section 30(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Treatment of leasehold improvements for tax purposes. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Expenditure as Revenue or Capital: The primary issue was whether the expenses incurred by the assessee on leasehold improvements should be classified as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. The assessee claimed Rs. 47,37,14,260/- for A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs. 23,12,19,190/- for A.Y. 2012-13 as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these claims, treating the expenses as capital expenditure, which were then added to the assessee's income for the respective assessment years. 2. Eligibility of Deductions under Section 37(1) and Section 30(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee argued that the expenses were necessary for setting up and maintaining the standardized look of their retail outlets, which were leased premises. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] examined the nature of these expenses and held that they were revenue in nature, citing that the expenses did not create any new asset but were necessary for the business. The CIT(A) relied on the distinction between "repairs" and "current repairs" as outlined in Section 30(a)(i) and supported by the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Hi Line Pens Private Limited. The CIT(A) concluded that the expenses were for repairs and renovations necessary for the business and thus allowable under Section 37(1). 3. Treatment of Leasehold Improvements for Tax Purposes: The AO argued that the extensive renovations and beautification of the stores resulted in enduring benefits and should be treated as capital expenditure. However, the CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the modifications did not create new assets but were necessary for the business operations of the franchisee of Domino's Pizza and Dunkin Donuts. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the expenses were revenue in nature and necessary for the business, thus falling under Section 37(1). Conclusion: The High Court of Allahabad found that the CIT(A) and ITAT's findings were based on relevant material and concluded that no new asset had come into existence due to the incurred expenditure. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, affirming that the expenses were rightly classified as revenue expenditure and allowable under the Income Tax Act. Final Judgment: Both appeals filed by the appellants under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act were dismissed, with the court affirming that no substantial question of law was involved in the impugned order of the Tribunal.
|
