TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the items involved had a long period of life and CIT(A) admitted such claim under sec.30(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short). Further as per the Revenue, reliance placed on the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. TVS Lean Logistic Ltd. (293 ITR 432) was inappropriate since the facts were not comparable. 2. Short facts of relevance are that assessee had during the impugned asst. years claimed depreciation on certain building considering it to be purely temporary erections. Depreciation claim was at the rate of 100% as provided in Part-A, of Appendix-I to Income-tax Rules, 1962 ( Rules for short) considering the addition to be of purely temporary erection like wooden structures. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee did not acquire any capital asset nor did the construction or erection, result in any permanent structures. He also noted that the additions were made in the registered office of the company which was working from a rented premises. He, therefore, held the claim to be allowable as revenue expenditure. 4. Now before us, ld. DR assailing the order of the CIT(A), submitted that the items acquired by assessee were not purely temporary structures like wooden structures. According to him, the use of the structures gave an enduring benefit to the assessee resulting out of substantial renovation. Per contra, ld. AR strongly supported the orders of the CIT(A) and submitted that expenditure on renovation/repair for conducting the business w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction on revenue account, when the expenditure was incurred in rented premises. Even if we consider that the expenditure were incurred in a premises owned by the assessee, decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACT vs. M/s Lintas (I) Ltd. (ITA Nos.1696 1601/Mum/06 dated 18-10-2010) would come to assessee s aid. It was held by the Mumbai Bench that repair, maintenance and renovation expenditure of building, machinery and equipment to keep the asset in good working condition could not be considered as capital outgo. Again the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Sundaram BNP Paribas Asset Management Co. Ltd. (supra) held as under in para-3 of its order: 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
