Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 911 - HC - Income TaxExpenses of stamp duty for pledge agreement and processing fees charged by the bank - revenue or capital expenditure - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- While deleting the addition it was noted that the expenses incurred towards pledge agreement with the bank was for borrowing working capital availed from bank and by incurring he expenditure no capital asset has come into existence. Before us no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to controvert the findings of CIT (A) and ITAT treating the expenses as revenue. - Decided against revenue Expenses on account of repairs, renovation, building road, Labour charges and maintenance expenses - revenue or capital expenditure - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that looking to the nature of the expenditure, the same could not have been treated as capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer had also made an ad-hoc addition on the ground that corresponding labour charges and other expenses were not reflected. The Tribunal in particular confirmed the view of the CIT(A) that mere quantum of expenditure would not be sufficient to treat as capital expenditure, inter-alia, on such grounds - Decided against revenue Machinery reconditioning charges of existing plant and machinery - expenses treated as capital expenditure - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- assessee contended that machinery had become old and without changing the core machinery, replacement of parts was carried out by way of reconditioning and the expenditure involved was for such purpose. Assessing Officer without rejecting the contention of the assessee that the core machinery remained unchanged, disallowed the expenditure and treated as capital expenditure. Here also, the Tribunal observed that merely because the cost of repair was close to written down value of the machinery, would not justify in treating as one of capital expenditure - Decided against revenue
|