TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Saravana Spinning Mills (2007 -TMI - 1775 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), followed - revenue appeal dismissed - 165/2010 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2010 - MR. BADAR DURREZ AHMED and MR SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr N. P. Sahni with Mr P. C. Yadav For the Respondent: None BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J CM 1650/2010 The delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. This application stands disposed of. ITA 165/2010 1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 2967/Del/2007 relating to the assessment year 2004-2005. 2. The only issue that is sought to be raised in the present appeal is with regard to the deletion of a sum of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrent repairs as defined in Section 31(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act‟). 4. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that in the earlier years the assessee had been incurring expenses on account of repairs of building ranging from Rs 6,98,946/- to Rs 11,66,955/- and the same had been allowed by the department as an allowable expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were perhaps impressed by the magnitude of the expenditure in the current year which was to the tune of Rs 35,51,245/- and came to the conclusion that it was in the nature of capital expenditure and, therefore, disallowed the same. 5. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the normal operation of the business, was not controverted by the departmental representative nor had any evidence to the contrary been produced before the Tribunal or the authorities below. It was ultimately concluded that employing the test indicated in Saravana Spinning Mills (supra), the assessee had incurred the said expenditure only to preserve and maintain the existing asset and that the expenditure was not of a nature which brought into being a new asset or created a new advantage of an enduring nature. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance. 6. We find no reason to interfere with these findings which are essentially in the nature of factual findings. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
