9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer is also rejected since the fact have been addressed and settled by the Authorities below and it had been concurrently found that the expenditure were capital in nature. The issue of bifurcating the said expenses as capital and revenue would therefore not arise. Substantial questions of law have to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee - Tax Case Appeal Nos.104 & 105 of 2019 & CMP.No.2705 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2020 - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Appellant : Mrs.V.Pushpa, SC For the Respondent : Mr.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan COMMON JUDGMENT T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. We have heard Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts. 6. The matters arose pursuant to an order under Section 254 of the Act and the business concern, in which, the assessee was a partner, was subjected to search and seizure operations, in the appeals before him, the CIT(A) followed the orders passed by Tribunal in the earlier cases, which were the subject matter of TCA.Nos.1929 to 1937 of 2008. 7. The relevant portions in the said common judgment read as follows : 15. The primary basis on which the Tribunal had answered the issues in favour of the Assessee was that this Court in Hari Vignesh Motor (P) Ltd., cited supra, following the earlier Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Auto Services (P) Ltd., cited supra had held that expenditure incurred in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the premises in question. This being a fact which had been settled, cannot be re-examined on the basis of the specious argument advanced. 17. A further examination of the facts of the case shows that the Assessees have actually put up substantial construction of enduring benefit and also renovated the building for the purpose of their business. Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) is as follows:- [Explanation 1.- Where the business or profession of the assessee is carried on in a building not owned by him but in respect of which the assessee holds a lease or other right of occupancy and any capital expenditure is incurred by the assessee for the purposes of the business or profession on the construction of any structure o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee and the Expln. 1 to S.32(1) of the Act is not attracted to the instant case of the assessee at all. The aforesaid Judgement cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee are therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of amended law. 19. In Silver Screen Enterprises Vs. CIT, 85 ITR 0578, (High Court of P H) , while examining whether expenditure incurred on repairs to chairs, renovation of building and modernisation of cinema house taken on lease by the Assessee, it was held that they are capital expenditure since it brought an enduring benefit. The relevant discussion on this aspect is quoted below:- It cannot be denied that the amount spent for the construction of the verandh, office ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure incurred by the assessee is an expenditure of a capital nature and it brought into being an advantage of an enduring nature and thus it had been rightly treated as such by the Tribunal, except to the extent of the amount found by the Tribunal being on account of repairs. 20 . In view of the above propositions, we are of the considered view that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee in the present case are Capital in nature and come within the mischief of Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) of the Act. The alternate submission advanced by Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar that the repairs to the premises cannot be capitalised in view of Section 30(a)(i) of the Act is rejected since the renovations made are Capital in nature in the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
