TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to demonstrate that there had been any change in the rate of taxation during these years. Thus, even if the substantial portion of the expenditure had been capitalized and depreciation allowed under Explanation 1 to Section 32 of the Act, at the prevalent rate admissible under the Act and the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the entire amount would have been allowed as deduction on account of depreciation by now and the case would be revenue neutral. Therefore, in such circumstances as well, we do not find any justification in interfering with the order of the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue - I. T. A. Nos. 309 and 312 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 2-9-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in ITA No.312 o 2014 may be noticed. The assessee company deals in manufacturing and trading of malted products such as Horlicks, Boost etc. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2000-01 on 14.11.2000 at ₹ 1,00,77,74,936/-. Initial assessment in the case was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act at an income of ₹ 1,10,49,98,156/-. In the assessment proceedings, deduction under Chapter VIA under Section 80G of the Act amounting to ₹ 7,54,194/- was allowed and deduction of ₹ 1,32,15,921/- claimed under section 80HHC of the Act was reduced to ₹ 1,12,21,363/-. Deduction of ₹ 11,72,30,053/- claimed under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the Assessing Officer to verify the details of expenditure and ascertain which expenditure fell within the purview of Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) of the Act out of the total expenditure of ₹ 4,77,59,930/- incurred on renovation and interior decoration. In reassessment proceedings in order under section 254/143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2008, the entire expenditure claimed was added again. No documentary evidence was filed by the assessee regarding expenses on renovation and interior decoration. The CIT(A) on appeal vide order dated 9.7.2009, Annexure A.5 allowed partial relief in respect of renovation expenses. The revenue did not file any appeal. However, the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 6.3.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iberty House, Railway Road, Karnal vs. CIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 13, Karnal, ITA No.97 of 2012, decided on 17.9.2013, Uttar Bharat Exchange Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, (1965) Vol. IV ITR 550 (P H), Silver Screen Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, (1972) 85 ITR 578 (P H), M/s Associated Engineers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Amritsar, ITA No.82 of 2005, decided on 16.7.2014 and judgment of Delhi High Court in Modi Spinning Weaving Mills Co. Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1993) 200 ITR 544 (Del.). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 7. No doubt, under Explanation 1 to Section 32 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enditure incurred on temporary wooden partition, fittings, white washing etc. and on carpet tiles amounting to ₹ 4.18 crorres and ₹ 72.12 lacs. As referred to by us in the paras hereinabove, the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the renovation of its office has brought into existence certain items of enduring nature and certain expenditure has been incurred by the assessee on renovation of building which is revenue in nature. The assessee has failed to provide the complete details under the various sub heads of expenditure and both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have failed to address the said issue on the surmise that the assessee had not furnished complete details before them. Even bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus partly allowed in both the assessment years. 10. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are erroneous or perverse in any manner. The view adopted by the Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances is a plausible view. The legal proposition enunciated in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the revenue is well recognized but these pronouncements being based on individual fact situation involved therein do not help her. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises. 11. Viewed from another angle, the case here relates to the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 where the allowability of the expenditure is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
