9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the nature of revenue expenditure. The authorities below, as indicated hereinabove, have not examined, in our view, the expenditure incurred under each sub-head minutely so as to ascertain as to whether or not they would fall under the category of capital expenditure. Furthermore, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, a Division Bench of this Court in Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2013 (2) TMI 450 - Madras High Court ), has held that temporary structures such as false ceiling, could not be categorised as a capital expenditure.As a matter of fact, in that particular case, deduction was claimed qua expenditure incurred on re-laying of damaged floors, painting and setting up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penditure ? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not considering and applying the ratio of various decisions of the High Court and Tribunal including those of jurisdictional High Court and coordinate benches of the Tribunal at Chennai cited before them ? 3.In order to adjudicate the questions of law framed, the following broad facts are required to be noticed. 3.1. The assessee, who is in the business of servicing of computers, computer peripherals and telecommunication products, in addition to the business of trading in telecommunication products, had filed its return for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-2009, on 25.09.2008, whereby, it admitted an income of ₹ 3,35,31,354/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 338; (ii) CIT vs. Madras Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC). 3.6. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee did not meet with success. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The assessee carried the matter further by way of an appeal to the Tribunal, which met the same fate. 3.7. It is in these circumstances that the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 4. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal, has made the following observations in the impugned order, which form, the basis of the conclusion reached by it, ''6.We have heard both the parties and carefully perused the materials available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rooran Sugars Ltd. vs. LD.CIT, the facts are not identical to the case of the assessee. In that case, the issue before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court was ''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the repairs and renovation expenses incurred on the leased business premises as capital expenditure ?'' In the present case before us, it is not the repair work that was carried on but creation of an asset itself by incurring an whooping expenditure of ₹ 1,18,33,613/-. Considering the facts of the present case before us, and based on our above discussions, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the elaborate and speaking decision rendered by the Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis on the fact that the period of lease was nine (9) years and that it was renewable at the option of the assessee / lessee, albeit, on further terms and conditions which may be mutually agreed to between the parties. Learned counsel also adverted to various other clauses of the lease deed to emphasize the point that not only was the lessor / landlord required to hand over the demised premises to the assessee / lessee, after it was placed in good order, but also, had undertaken to bear all major expenses towards repairs. Learned counsel, in particular, drew our attention to Clauses 2, 3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 5.13, 6.6 and 8 of the lease deed dated 01.12.2006. 8.Besides the aforesaid, Mr.Ravi also relied upon the details of expenditure contain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l expenditure. 11.1. Besides this, there is case law to suggest that a difference would have to be drawn between the ''current repairs'' and ''repairs'', (See judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Hi Line Pens (P) Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 182 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amway India Enterprises, (2012) 346 ITR 341). 11.2. Furthermore, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, a Division Bench of this Court in Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2013) 350 ITR 324 (Mad), has held that temporary structures such as false ceiling, could not be categorised as a capital expenditure. 11.3. As a matter of fact, in that particular case, deduction was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
