9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of repairs and maintenance of furniture and fixtures is revenue in nature or capital expenditure. 3. The relevant facts giving raise to this appeal are that the assessee debited expenses amounting to Rs.3,34,405/- under the head repairs and maintenance - building, Rs. 68,50,747/- under the head repairs and maintenance - furniture and fixtures and Rs.1,38,188/- under the head repairs and maintenance - others. Thus, assessee claimed aggregate expenditure which comes to Rs. 73,23,340/-. The Assessing Officer stated that the above expenditure were incurred in relation to the premises taken by assessee on hire from MMTC Ltd., Mumbai. The Assessing Officer stated that an amount of Rs. 57,29,609/- was incurred towards purchase of Burma Gurj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curred only to run the business of the appellant, hence it is the revenue expenditure. Further these expenses was incurred not on account of constructing the new furniture but for repairing or renewing the existing furniture & fixtures as per the requirement of the client. These expenses includes the expenses of purchase of aluminium / sectional window / painters / flooring / roofing / hardware glass / wood / labour charges etc. which was used in repairing or renewing the existing furniture & fixtures. If such expenses are not incurred by the assessee then it would be difficult for it to run the business centre. Every year the appellant spent such large amount of expenditure on repairs & maintenance." 4. The Assessing Officer did not acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness centre require inherently higher maintenance expenditure as business centres are used by a large number of people for commercial purposes resulting in higher wear-andtear of the furniture etc. The Ld. CIT (A) has further stated that the assessee itself had capitalized a sum of Rs. 28 lakhs approximately on account of new furniture and fixture. The learned Departmental Representative has also not disputed the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that in preceding years i.e., Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07, similar disallowances were made by Assessing Officer and were deleted by the first appellate authority. At the time of hearing, learned Departmental Representative could not state as to whether the department had accepted the said orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
