Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.20 seconds)
Apollo Sindhoori Hotels Ltd., , Chennai vs Assessee on 3 January, 2013 cites

Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 1980

6. However, ld. CIT(Appeals) was not impressed. According to him, assessee itself had estimated a capital expenditure of ` 1.25 6 I.T.A. Nos. 827 to 830/Mds/12 Crores for interior and amenities in the leased building. The nature of expenditure had a capital flavour and assessee has to be considered as deemed owner of the structure. As for the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. (supra), ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the said case pertained to purchase of loom hours by jute manufacturers thereby binding themselves to limited loom hours every week. According to him, facts were entirely different here. The building, which was used for running hotel, was a source of revenue for the assessee. Assessee had derived direct enduring benefit. Assessee had spent much larger amount than the amounts spent by the lessor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 743 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu ... vs Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. Etc on 12 August, 1998

13. As for the decision in the case of Madras Auto Service Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied on by the learned A.R., the assessment year involved in the said case was 1968-69 and 1969-70, when explanation 1 to Section 32(1)(ii) was not there in the statute. The said explanation was added in the statute by Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986 with effect from 1.4.1988.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 286 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Madura Coats Ltd. on 30 April, 1998

12. Argument of the assessee is that expenditure incurred by its very nature was allowable as revenue outgo and could not be considered as a capital outgo, just because of the above Explanation. However, as mentioned by us, assessee did hold a valid lease resulting in a right of occupancy. In the additional floors constructed, also it was having a right of occupancy. In our opinion, in such a situation, any expenditure incurred for any work by way of renovation or extension or improvement to the existing building would fall within Explanation 1 to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. There is no case for the assessee that there was no building whatsoever in the leased area. Admittedly, there was already a building having three floors in which it was already carrying on its business. The question whether Section 37 could be applied for determining the allowability of an expenditure incurred in a rented or leased premises, after Explanation 1 was added to Section 32(1)(ii), has been answered by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Madura Coats (TCA 322 to 324 of 2008 dated 22.12.2011). It has been held by their Lordship that expenditure incurred in the leased building could not be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Act. Section 37(1) could be applied only where expenditure was either capital or personal. Explanation 1 to 11 I.T.A. Nos. 827 to 830/Mds/12 Section 32(1)(ii) could not be ignored. Their Lordship held that said explanation enabled capital expenditure incurred on construction of any structure or expenditure incurred for renovation or extension or improvement to a leased building, to be treated as building on which depreciation alone could be claimed. In the said case, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court had disallowed the claim of an assessee for expenditure incurred on a rented building.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 33 - Full Document
1