9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d maintenance having been treated as to be of capital nature by the Assessing Officer, respectively has been challenged. 2. For assessment year 2004-05, Assessing Officer made disallowance as under: "Perusal of P&L A/c of the assessee reveals that it has debited an amount of Rs.441269/- on account of building maintenance. Assessee was asked to furnish complete details of the same which it furnished vide its reply dated 21.12.2009. Perusal of above details reveal that part of the said expenses is on account of new tiles, new doors, electrical items etc. which are capital in nature as assessee would draw enduring benefit form it. When assessee was asked regarding the same it submitted, "Expenditure on Building maintenance is to keep the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting asset i.e. hospital building at Preet Vihar. So, Assessing Officer was not justified in arbitrarily disallowing the part of repairs expenses. It is trite law that the dispute between capital and revenue expenditure is to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no definite test or straight jacket formula for determining whether a particular expenditure is capital or revenue. So, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Kayoom vs. CIT, 44 I.T.R. 689 to plead for deletion of the part of the expenses disallowed. 4. CIT(A) while considering and accepting the plea of the assessee has concluded to delete the impugned addition as per para.3.3 of his order as under: "I have considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only 30% of the same and has given valid reason for making the impugned addition at 30% of the total expenditure claimed. Therefore, his action being legally valid, which may be restored by setting aside the order of the CIT(A). 6. Ld.Counsel for the assessee, while relying upon the order of CIT(A), has pleaded for similar treatment as given to another hospital where identical addition was made with respect to repair and maintenance, in which Ld.CIT(A), while relying upon ITAT, Chandigarh bench decision for the assessment year 2005-06 in the case of M/s U.G. Hospital (P) Ltd., has deleted such addition and CIT(A) followed the ITAT decision to delete the impugned addition, since no contrary material or higher court's order/decision has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eated as revenue expenditure. Therefore, it was pleaded for setting aside the order of CIT(A) and restoring that of the Assessing Officer. 9. Ld.Cousnel for the assessee has relied upon the order of CIT(A) and pleaded for its confirmation as issue is covered in favour of the assessee by ITAT decision cited supra. 10. We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record and find that there is no difference in material facts of the present case and the case decided for the earlier year and since in earlier year, CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition by following the ITAT bench decision cited supra and same has been applied here in this year when neither any distinguishable feature is there nor any infirmity is pointed out or f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
