9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses Rs. 1,000 White-washing and Painting Rs. 7,000 Rs. 10,000 2. We have heard the parties at length. We have perused carefully the orders of the learned lower authorities and the assessee's paper-book which contain details of 'miscellaneous and repairs', 'white washing Painting', 'guide expenses', details of miscellaneous expenses', 'details of repairs', details of licenses annexed with the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year under appeal as annexure 'A' and 'B'. Photostat copy of profit and loss accounts for the year ended31st March,1982has also been placed on our file. 3. As regards disallowance of Rs. 1,000 out of general expenses, the reasoning of the ITO is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seems to be an annual routine with the assessee and the disallowances cannot be sustained for the reasoning as in the orders of the learned lower authorities since their Lordships of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Instalment supply Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT Delhi-II (1984) 40 CTR (Del) 313: (1984) 149 ITR 52 (Del) have held that expenditure by a tenant towards repair even if capital in nature has to be allowed as an expenditure in the nature of a revenue expenditure being relatable to the commercial activity of the assessee under s. 30(a)(i) of the Act. We quote here under for the desired fortification what their Lordships have observed: "The legislature has used different language in the provisions of s. 30(a)(ii) of the IT Act 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee was only a part, at the time of removal of walls and for support to the roof with additional pillars. Out of the sum of Rs. 47,186 the assessee capitalised a sum of Rs. 9,399 and claimed deduction of the balance as allowable expenditure. As in the earlier years, the ITO estimated and allowed Rs. 7,788 towards repairs and disallowed the balance of Rs. 30,000. The Tribunal held that the sum of Rs. 30,000 was in the nature of capital expenditure holding that the repairs could no be said to be small but effected a complete change of structure, that the amount spent on marble flooring brought in to existence an asset of enduring benefit and the amount spent on wood work could not be said to be current repair or replacement. On a reference: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
