Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 363 - AT - Income TaxRepairs and maintenance of building - construction activity - revenue or capital expenditure - Held that:- The Main reason for the disallowances by the Ld. assessing officer is that the assessee has incurred expenditure on MS plate’s sheets and angles. Merely the assessee has used a particular material it cannot be said that the assessee has used it for the purpose of construction of a building without recording a specific finding about the nature of extension or construction work carried out. It is also important to note that detail of expenditure selected by the Ld. AO then saying that it is a capital expenditure in nature without noting that it does not include any cement or labour expenditure. AO also did not brought on record that whether the assessee has constructed any new shed. In absence of any finding by the Ld. assessing officer that assessee has extended its already existing building such kind of expenditure cannot be held to be capital in nature. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi high court in CIT versus TS TECH SUN India Ltd (2012 (7) TMI 313 - DELHI HIGH COURT) squarely covered the issue in favour of the assessee wherein on the identical facts and circumstances Hon’ble high court has held that no extra capacity or space was created in the factory by repairing the roof and floor and therefore no advantage of enduring nature was obtained by the assessee. Therefore respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi high court, we reverse the finding of the lower authorities that the expenditure is capital in nature. In view of this, we hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is revenue in nature and there is no benefit of enduring nature obtained by the assessee.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|