|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1752 Records
-
2016 (11) TMI 1616 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Depreciation on assets put into use - assets have been claimed by the assessee as an application of income for charitable activities - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1615 - ITAT COCHIN
Benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2) - assessee is a primary agricultural credit society - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The certificate, which has been issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, to the above effect, is placed on record.
CHIRAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2016 (4) TMI 826 - KERALA HIGH COURT] held that primary agricultural credit societies registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 are entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act. Since there is a certificate issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies stating that the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a).
Granting deduction u/s 80P(2) for the addition made u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- We notice that the Assessing Officer while making the addition u/s 68 of the Act had brought the same to tax under the head ‘income from business’. Once the same is brought to tax as ‘income from business’, the said income is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act . See THE KARAD MERCHANT SAH. CREDIT [2011 (2) TMI 1543 - ITAT PUNE] and BULDANA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. [2013 (12) TMI 237 - ITAT NAGPUR]
The CBDT, in the recent circular no.37/2016 dated 2nd Nov 2016 has considered higher deduction u/s 80P on the enhanced profit as a result of disallowance of expenditure. The CBDT had clarified that, as a result of expenditure disallowance, there is a enhanced profit and the same is brought to tax as business income, deduction under Chapter VI-A need to be allowed on the enhanced profit. Thus we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in granting benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act, as regard to addition u/s 68
-
2016 (11) TMI 1614 - ITAT COCHIN
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - assessee is a primary agricultural credit societies registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The certificate, which has been issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, to the above effect, is placed on record. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee own case and other batch of cases had held that primary agricultural credit societies registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 are entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act. Since there is a certificate issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies stating that the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) of the I T Act.
Ad-hoc disallowance of 5% out of the total interest paid by the assessee on the deposits received from its members - AO while making the ad-hoc disallowance of interest paid had brought the same to tax under the head “income from business” - HELD THAT:- AO while making the ad-hoc disallowance of interest paid had brought the same to tax under the head “income from business”. Once the same is brought to tax as ‘income from business’, the said income is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act.
The CBDT, in the recent circular no.37/2016 dated 2nd Nov 2016 has considered higher deduction u/s 80P on the enhanced profit as a result of disallowance of expenditure. The CBDT had clarified that, as a result of expenditure disallowance, there is a enhanced profit and the same is brought to tax as business income, deduction under Chapter VI-A need to be allowed on the enhanced profit. We hold that the CIT(A) is justified in granting benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) as regard to interest that was disallowed. Accordingly, ground is rejected.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1613 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007 - mismatch of refund on the ground that there is mismatch in the description of the goods in the Bill of Entry and the one mentioned in the sales invoices - HELD THAT:- It is seen that Notification No. 102/2007, dated 14-9-2007 inter alia requires the importer to provide copies of sale invoices of the imported goods in respect of which refund is claimed along with documents evidencing payment of the special additional duty of Customs. It is imperative that match between these two documents is established that goods for which SAD has been suffered have indeed been sold. Only when subsequent sale is established there can be allowance of full benefit of notification since this is the very purpose of the said notification.
As per appellant's own admission, the goods being various grades of HDPE/LDPE/LLDPE granules, unless there is an acceptable match between description of the imported goods as given in the Bill of Entry and corresponding sale invoices, the identity of the goods will not be able to be established by the refund sanctioning authority. This being the case, discrepancy in description of goods was not in the nature of curable defect, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1612 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue - allowability of payment on revision of pay scales as prior period expenses u/s 37 - unabsorbed overhead on capital works under “Miscellaneous Expenses” - CIT decided these two claims on merits - AO had no option in light of direction of CIT - HELD THAT:- AO, decided the matter in accordance with the directions of the CIT as he was indeed bound to. CIT, therefore, decided these two claims on merits. Even the other issues were decided by the CIT on merits. However, they are not relevant for the reasons already stated.
The Tribunal was, therefore, bound to consider the case on merits as well. We have come to the conclusion that the decision of the Tribunal on merits must be upheld. In view thereof, it was open to the Tribunal and it certainly is open to us to proceed on the basis that the proceedings under section 263 were valid. Once we proceed even on a demurer that the proceedings under section 263 are valid, we are entitled, indeed bound to consider the issues on merits.
Allowability of payment on revision of pay scales as prior period expenses u/s 37 - when the liability to pay the arrears arose? - whether the liability to pay the entire arrears arose in the assessment year in question, namely, 2009-10 or whether the liability arose to the extent of 40% in the AY 2009-10 and to the extent of 60% in the following AY 2010-11? - HELD THAT:- Tribunal rightly held that the entire liability was incurred in the assessment year in question; had been estimated with reasonable certainty and that it was not a contingent liability. The assessee was, however, liable to discharge a part of that liability at a future date. What is relevant is when the assessee’s decision that the amount was payable was taken. The provision for the payment of the salary including arrears was not a contingent liability. It arose on account of the sixth pay commission which was approved by the Haryana Government and adopted by the assessee. We are in agreement with this finding of the Tribunal.
The liability, in the case before us, arose in the assessment year 2009-10. Sixty percent of it was liable to be discharged in the next assessment year. It is, undoubtedly, estimated with more than just reasonable certainty. The liability was, therefore, not a contingent one but one in praesenti. A part of it was to be discharged at a future date. The judgment supports the assessee’s case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Allowability of Misc. expenses - assessee has charged the administrative expenses incurred on construction staff at 14% to capital work and repair and maintenance as per accounting policy. The system was adopted from the PWD. The remaining expenses were charged to revenue expenditure as unabsorbed overhead on capital works under miscellaneous expenses in the profit and loss account - HELD THAT:- This was the first time that the Department had not accepted the assessee’s case. The Tribunal found on facts that the CIT (Appeals) had not pointed out any defect in the assessee’s accounting policy. This was disclosed in the return. It was not contended that the assessee had not disclosed the true and proper income. Thus, a substantial question of law in this regard does not arise. This question is, therefore, also answered against the Department/Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Perversity of Tribunal order - grossly overlooked the material evidence/information on record - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any perversity. Even on issue No.3, the Tribunal has taken a possible view. This question is, therefore, also answered in favour of the assessee
-
2016 (11) TMI 1611 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Following question of law arises for consideration:-
“Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fell into error in interfering with Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] findings with respect to the contentions made under Section 263 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the circumstances of the case ”
-
2016 (11) TMI 1610 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Whether the Tata Ryerson Ltd. (assessee), who ceases to be manufacturer of excisable goods under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 02/03/2005 in view of Board's Circular No.811/8/2005-CX dated 02/03/2005, was permitted under law to take Cenvat Credit, on or after 02/03/2005, on the excisable goods (i.e. HR/CR Coils) which were received by them from Tisco after payment of duty, for slitting and cutting, since Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allowed only manufacturer of excisable final product to take credit?
HELD THAT:- It appears that HR Coils – the goods which are prepared by the respondent, is not an exempted goods at all as per definition given under Rule 2(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence, there is no applicability of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, whatsoever arises. Moreover, it appears that the preparation of the HR Coils by the respondent is not manufacturing of goods at all, because, it is simply cutting, slitting and strengthening of HR Coils purchased from Tata Steel.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1609 - ITAT CHENNAI
Levy of penalty u/s. 271AAA - due date of filing Return of income u/s. 139(1) has already expired before the search - HELD THAT:- The search u/s. 132 was conducted on 26.08.2008 and the due date of filing the Return of income of assessee is 31.07.2008 and the assessee has filed the Return of income on 17.10.2008, which is after the due date of Return of Income u/s. 139(1) and in compliance to the provisions of section 271AAA. The specified the previous year applicability for the year ended is 31.03.2008 and the present assessment year being assessment year 2008-09, and the due date u/s. 139(1) being 31.07.2008 and whereas search u/s. 132 took place on 26.08.2008 and the due date of filing Return of income u/s. 139(1) has already expired before the search.
Hence, the penalty cannot be initiated. CIT(A) does not have the power to give directions to levy penalty u/s. 271AAA on undisclosed income. Since, the orders of the Assessing Officer on penalty merged with the appellate authority, we are of the opinion that order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained and in the interest of justice, we dismiss the order of CIT(A) and allow the grounds of the assessee.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1608 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Issue notice to the respondent company, returnable on 23.12.2016. In addition, service be effected on the respondent company, via private mode as well.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1607 - ITAT BANGALORE
Disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) - disallow payments when TDS was not done and subsequently become taxable on account of a retrospective legislation - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) followed the decision of this Tribunal in M/s WS Atkins India Pvt. Ltd, supra, which referred the decisions of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Infotech Enterprises Ltd [2014 (1) TMI 1363 - ITAT HYDERABAD] wherein it has been held that section 40(a)(ia) would not apply to disallow payments when TDS was not done and subsequent ly become taxable on ac count of a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd [2018 (1) TMI 184 - ITAT DELHI] & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 193 - ITAT MUMBAI]. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1606 - SUPREME COURT
Grant of Excise licence to run country liquor shops - one eligibility conditions for grant of license is that licensee and his family members must possess good moral character and have no criminal background - It was alleged in the FIR that Vinod Kumar Tripathi and his wife Asha Tripathi, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively had committed fraud and forgery by opening bank account in the name of the Respondent No. 1 by affixing his photograph, submitting his ID and had withdrawn amount by forging his signature and deposited the security amount with District Excise Officer, Allahabad - Held that:- It is expected that the High Courts while dealing with the lis are expected to focus on the process of adjudication and decide the matter. The concept, what is thought of or experienced cannot be ingrained or engrafted into an order solely because such a thought has struck the adjudicator. It must flow from the factual base and based on law. To elaborate, there cannot be general comments on the investigation or for that matter, issuance of host of directions for constituting separate specialized cadre managed by officials or to require an affidavit to be filed whether sanctioned strength of police is adequate or not to maintain law and order or involvement of judicial officers or directions in the like manner. To say the least, some of the directions issued are not permissible and all of them are totally unrelated to the case before the High Court - the High Court should have been well advised to restrict the adjudicatory process that pertained to the controversy that was before it.
A Judge should not perceive a situation in a generalised manner. He ought not to wear a pair of spectacles so that he can see what he intends to see. There has to be a set of facts to express an opinion and that too, within the parameters of law.
Some of the directions are in the sphere of policy. A court cannot take steps for framing a policy. As is evincible, the directions issued by the High Court and the queries made by it related to various spheres which, we are constrained to think, the High Court should not have gone into. It had a very limited lis before it. Be it stated, the directions may definitely show some anxiety on the part of the learned Judges, but it is to be remembered that directions are not issued solely out of concern. They have to be founded on certain legally justifiable principles that have roots in the laws of the country.
Thus, the High Court has crossed the boundaries of the controversy that was before it. The courts are required to exercise the power of judicial review regard being had to the controversy before it. There may be a laudable object in the mind but it must flow from the facts before it or there has to be a specific litigation before it - In the maintenance of law and order situation the judicial officers are not to be involved. But the executive has to remain absolutely alive to its duties and we are sure, the State Government shall look into the aspects and endeavour to see that appropriate steps are taken to maintain the law and order situation.
The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1605 - ITAT PUNE
TPO - Comparable selection - inward Technologies Ltd. has been wrongly excluded from the list of comparable, therefore, the same should included in the list of comparables - AR prayed for excluding from the list of comparables Tata Technologies Ltd. having operating margin of 31.18% on the ground of high profit making company - Held that:- There is no dispute in respect of settled position that the consistent loss making company has to be excluded from the list of comparables. A company is said to be consistent loss making when the company has incurred losses in the three consecutive financial years including the financial year in which the international transactions have been made. In the instant case Financial Year 2009-10 is relevant to the assessment year under appeal. Thus, the financial years to be considered for determining whether the company is consistent loss making are financial years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. A perusal of the profit and loss account of Onward Technologies Ltd. placed on record shows that the said company has suffered losses in financial years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Thus, it is evident from the perusal of the financial results of Onward Technologies Ltd. that Onward Technologies Ltd. is consistent loss making company, therefore, the said company cannot be considered as a good comparable.
Exclusion of Tata Technologies Ltd., the ld. AR has not substantiated as to how the said company has abnormal profits. We do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is dismissed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1604 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA - assessee has not employed more than 10 employees - Held that:- Material evidence available on record shows that Shri. Sowrirajan was working in the factory in the day time and since he is staying in the premises of the assessee, he was also shown as chowkidar. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that an individual cannot be forced to work for more than eight hours in a day and if the assessee compels Shri. Sowrirajan to work in the day time in the factory and as a chowkidar in the night, it would be contrary to the provisions of labour welfare legislation. Therefore, the explanation of the assessee is contrary to the existing statutory provisions. Tribunal is of the considered opinion that Shri. Sowrirajan stay in the factory premises in the night cannot be considered as employment in the manufacturing process.
Coming to the consultant so long as the consultant is not shown as an employee of the assessee in its pay role, he cannot be considered as an employee participating in the manufacturing process. The assessee may consult several consultants for several purposes including legal and technical aspect. It is not known, what are the functions the consultant performed in the manufacturing process of the assessee. Unless and until, it is established that the consultant has performed a role in the manufacturing of diesel generator, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that such a consultant cannot be considered as an employee participating in the manufacturing process of the assessee - Decided against assessee.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1603 - ITAT COCHIN
Entitlement to the benefit of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - AO held that the assessee is engaged in the business of banking and in view of section 80P(4), since the assessee is not a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, it is not entitled to deduction - Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has categorically held in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 [2016 (5) TMI 1164 - KERALA HIGH COURT] that the assessee is not a primary agricultural credit society and it is a co-operative bank. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act, in view of introduction of section 80P(4) of the Act with effect from 01/04/2007. Thus order of the CIT(A) in denying the benefit of deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act is correct - Decided against assessee.
Disallowance of contribution made to unrecognized Superannuation Fund - Held that:- We notice that for the assessment year 2009-10 the assessee has accepted the CIT(A)’s order and no further appeal was preferred to the Tribunal. The assessee’s contention that to the extent of withdrawals made by the employees from unrecognized provident fund should be allowed as deduction u/s. 37 of the I.T. Act was never raised before any of the authorities below. Hence, this plea of the assessee is rejected.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1602 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemption under Section 54F - expenditure purportedly incurred by the assessee on renovating the new asset, after its purchase by the assessee, to make it habitable - whether be included in the cost of the new asset? - Held that:- Tribunal has allowed the respondentassessee's appeal by following the decisions of its Coordinate Benches at Mumbai in Saleem Fazuebhoi v/s. DCIT [2006 (6) TMI 139 - ITAT BOMBAY-G] to hold that the expenditure incurred on making the house habitable should be considered as an investment in purchase of a house, subject to the condition that the payment was made during the specified period under Section 54F of the Act. The Revenue has accepted the above two decisions of the Tribunal. This for the reason that it has not been able to show that any appeal has been filed from the two aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal. The impugned order has merely been followed by the impugned order of the Tribunal.
Improvement cost inclusion in the cost of the new asset while working out the exemption under Section 54F - Held that:- The impugned order of the Tribunal records “we have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has incurred an expenditure of ₹ 58.26 lakhs on the improvement of the flat purchased by the assessee to make in a habitable condition.” The aforesaid statement recorded by the Tribunal has to be accepted in the absence of the same being rectified by it. It therefore follows that before the Tribunal the Revenue did not urge that the expenditure of ₹ 58.26 lakhs had not been in fact incurred to improve the flat so as to make it in habitable condition. No substantial question of law.
Appeal admitted on the substantial questions of law at question nos. (1) and (4).
-
2016 (11) TMI 1601 - ITAT MUMBAI
Earning on sale of shares of Talent Infoway Ltd - change of head of income - disputes under the head of income from other sources - Held that:- The option of the assessee in matters of the claim relating to the profits / gains on sale of shares based on the entries in the books of accounts, assumes significance.
The Officers are prevented from changing the head of income for taxing the said gains arbitrarily and without having contrary evidence against the assessee. The said Circular No. 6/2016 enlists certain conditions and the Revenue Authorities are required to examine the said Circular (supra) closely and adjudicate this issue after grating a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For this purpose, we remand this matter to the file of the AO.
Prima facie, we find, the contents of para 3(a) and other paragraphs of the said Board Circular do not permit the Revenue Authorities to change the head of income from "business income" to "the capital gains" or vice versa, unless the conditions specified in para 4 of the said Circular (supra) ie bogus claims or sham transactions / questionable transactions are involved. The Revenue Authorities are required to honour the books of account and the entries therein pertaining to the shares - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1600 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Expenses incurred on Information Technology by the Head office on and charged to the Indian Branch - assessee was deductible u/s 37(1) without any restrictions contained in Section 44C? - Held that:- The grievance being that the expenditure incurred on Information Technology to the extent of ₹ 14.99 crores cannot be disallowed u/s 40A(i) for failure to deduct tax at source. It is clear that the the Revenue was not aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) allowing deduction under Section 37(1) and also with the direction of the CIT(A) that the aforesaid payment would not be allowed as a deduction under Section 44C, therefore in the above view it is not open for the Revenue to urge this issue before us when the same was not urged before the Tribunal leading to the impugned order of the Tribunal. Question no.1 as formulated does not give rise to any substantial question of law
National loss arising from revaluation of unmatured forward exchange contract - Allowable deduction - no accrual as the forward contract was not settled and without appreciating the true nature of the transaction - Held that:- Issue stands covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Bank of India reported in [1995 (11) TMI 78 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
Appeal admitted on the substantial questions of law at question nos. (2), (3) and (5).
-
2016 (11) TMI 1599 - ITAT AGRA
Disallowance of deduction claimed for payment of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) on bank loan, - AO found certain loans/advances to have been given by the assessee to his family members and sister concerns/companies, without charging interest - CIT-A allowed claim - Held that:- No error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The department has not been able to refute the categorical finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) in the case of M/s Roger Exports, to the effect that the loans and advances were extended for business purpose of the assessee. Moreover, it also remains undisputed that the assessee had adequate interest free funds available for making the loans and advances in question - Decided in favour of assessee
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - amount was paid to M/s Roger Industries Ltd. for the individual benefit of the assessee - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As correctly taken into account by CIT(A), that no amount was received directly by the assessee from M/s Euro Safety Footwear Pvt. Ltd., wherein, the assessee was having more than 10% of shareholding. On the date of payment of ₹ 1 crore to M/s Roger Industries Ltd., i.e., 13.12.2007, the proprietorship concern stood already taken over by M/s Roger Industries Ltd. CIT(A) had specifically inquired of the AO, to show that the amount of ₹ 1 crore had been paid for the individual benefit of or on behalf of the assessee. Nothing to this effect was brought on record by the AO and the remand report of the AO is totally silent in this regard, but for making a bald assertion that the amount was paid to M/s Roger Industries Ltd. for the individual benefit of the assessee. CIT(A) has observed that later on in the remand report, the AO had himself stated that the amount taken by M/s Roger Industries Ltd. was utilized for payments made to cater for the need of M/s Roger Industries Ltd., i.e., for purchase of goods.
On the basis of the above, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) was well justified in holding that deemed dividend can be taxed only in the hands of the recipient, either being individual shareholder, or the concern in which the individual has a substantial interest, or if any payment is made on behalf of, or for the individual benefit of the individual shareholder, which is not the case herein. - Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1598 - ITAT MUMBAI
Correct head of income - Leave and license charges and service charge - Addition under the head income from house property or income from business - assessee entered into leave and license agreement and service agreement separately in respect of leasing out of industrial premises and for providing services - Held that:- The assessee company has given its two industrial buildings i.e. Indiplex-I and Indiplex-II on lease and received license fee and service charges which was shown as business income. We find from the objects of the company as mentioned in the Memorandum of Association, the main objects of the Company was to acquire properties and construct and hold the property. During this process assessee earned these leave and license charges as well as service charges.
We find that this issue is covered in favour of assessee and against Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015 (5) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] the circumstances of the present case from which we arrive at irresistible conclusion that in this case, letting of the properties is in fact is the business of the assessee. The assessee therefore, rightly disclosed the income under the Head Income from Business. It cannot be treated as 'income from the house property' - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1597 - ITAT CHENNAI
Renovation expenditure - Allowable Revenue expenditure - expenditure incurred by the assessee in replacing the mosaic floor by marble floor - Held that:- It appears that the hotel run by the assessee was classified as four star hotel since 1971. Therefore, the assessee has to necessarily have Air Conditioner Machine, Dishwash Machine and Audio Video in Resto Pub. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any material to suggest that the assessee has purchased any new machinery, it has to be considered only as replacement of the existing machinery. When we consider the hotel as a single unit, replacement of Air Conditioner Machine, Dishwash Machine and Audio Video in Resto Pub has to be considered as maintenance of the building for the purpose of running the business of hotel. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly found that the expenditure was revenue in nature. - decided against revenue.
............
|
