Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.01 seconds)Section 32 in The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Oxford University Press on 15 March, 1975
cabins, cubicles, laying good marbles, painting and other related
expenditure in order to meet its business requirements of keeping a good
standard office. No capital asset has been created and no enduring benefit
has been derived. According to the facts of the present case, we see
justification in the case of the assessee. The learned A.O. as well as learned
CIT(A) have failed to properly appreciate the facts of the case and have
incorrectly arrived at a conclusion that these expenses were in the nature of
capital. The case laws relied upon by the learned AR supports the case of
the assessee. By incurring these expenses the assessee did not bring into
existence an asset of a permanent nature. Therefore, the expenditure
cannot be called into the nature of capital as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Oxford University Press (supra).
Their Lordship observed that "repair" must be understood in
contradistinction of renewal or restoration and the test to be applied is to
see whether as a result of the expenditure what is being done is to preserve
and maintain an already existing asset or whether as a result of the
expenditure a new asset or a new advantage is being brought into existence.
Their Lordship also observed that the mere quantum of expenditure is not
by itself decisive of the question whether the expenditure is in the nature
of revenue or capital. Since in the present case no new asset or new
advantage has been brought into existence by the assessee, it cannot be
said that the assessee has incurred capital expenditure and quantum of
expenditure alone also cannot be considered sufficient to arrive at a
conclusion that the expenditure is in the nature of capital. What is
necessary to see is as to whether the expenditure is in the nature of capital
or it is in the nature of revenue.
The Amending Act, 1897
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Amway India Enterprises on 4 November, 2011
7.3 In the case of CIT v. Amway India Enterprises (supra) Their Lordship
have considered the earlier decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of
CIT v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. [(2008) 306 ITR 182 (Delhi)], where the
expression "repairs of the premises" was interpreted. It was held that
"repairs" was wider than "current repairs". What would be relevant to bear
in mind will be that what is the nature of expenditure whether it is incurred
for maintenance or renovation of an asset or was it expended otherwise and
the order of the Tribunal was upheld and the expenses incurred on flooring,
partition, wiring false ceiling, roofing was held to be in the nature of
revenue expenditure.
Rohini Capital Services Ltd. vs Dcit on 18 October, 2004
Assurance Services Ltd. v. DCIT (12 Taxman.com 424). The assessee is
aggrieved, hence has filed the aforementioned grounds of appeal.
The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ayesha Hospitals P. Ltd. on 10 October, 2006
(iv) CIT v. Ayesha Hospitals P.Ltd. [(2007) 292 ITR 266 (Mad.)]
The assessee was running hospital in leased premises. The
expenses were incurred on flooring, partition etc. for the newly
extended area of space and claimed as revenue expenditure. The A.O.
disallowed the same and reference was made especially to Explanation
1 to section 32. Finding that the nature of expenditure was in the
revenue expenditure for the purpose of carrying on business, their
Lordship held that the same were allowable as business expenditure.
On an alternate plea regarding application of Explanation 1 to section
32(1), their Lordships have observed that the reading of Explanation
1 would make it clear that if the lessee incurs capital expenditure on
the building of the nature mentioned in Explanation, then it will be
treated as if the building is owned by the assessee. It was observed
that the Explanation is an exceptional one which permits depreciation
in cases where the assessee does not own a building. However, the
Tribunal in the present case had given its finding that it is a revenue
expenditure on the ground that the expenditure is incurred only
towards painting, re-laying of the damaged floors, partitions, etc.,
which can never considered to be capital expenditure of the nature
mentioned in the above Explanation and thus the appeal filed by the
Revenue was dismissed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Mehta Transport Company on 17 March, 1985
(v) CIT v. Mehta Transport Company [(1986) 160 ITR 35 (Guj)]
8 ITA No.8397/Mum/2011.
M/s.Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Talathi And Panthaky Associated Pvt. ... on 30 January, 2012
7.2 In the case of CIT v. Talathi and Panthaky Associates P.Ltd. (supra),
despite making payment of Rs.1.5 crore towards reconstruction of the
tenanted premises, their Lordship have held that the expenditure was not in
the nature of capital. The assessee obtained a commercial advantage of
securing tenancy of an equivalent area of premises on the same rent as
before. Since there was no acquisition of capital asset and the occupation of
the assessee continued in the character of tenancy, the expenditure was in
13 ITA No.8397/Mum/2011.
M/s.Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd.