TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dispute over Expenditure Classification as Capital or Revenue</h1> <h3>Liberty Group Marketing Division, Karnal Versus DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal</h3> The appeal involved confirming the addition by the Assessing Officer to capitalize expenditure of Rs. 5,81,435. The Assessing Officer disallowed the ... - Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of addition made by Assessing Officer to capitalize expenditure of Rs. 5,81,435/-.Summary:Issue 1: Confirmation of Addition Made by Assessing Officer to Capitalize Expenditure of Rs. 5,81,435/-The only issue involved in the appeal is confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer to capitalize expenditure to the tune of Rs. 5,81,435/-. The appellant, a registered partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of Footwear, claimed total expenditure for repairs of Rs. 7,35,249/-. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 70,000/- towards temporary structure where 100% depreciation was allowed and Rs. 1,20,000/- as revenue expenditure. The balance expenditure of Rs. 5,81,435/- was treated as capital in nature and disallowed.The CIT (A) initially deleted this addition relying on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Haridas Bhagath & Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 240 ITR 169. However, the ITAT restored the issue to the file of CIT (A) with directions to evaluate the complete facts before arriving at a decision in accordance with law, providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.Upon re-evaluation, the CIT (A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, referencing several case laws including the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. Saravana Spinning P. Ltd., 293 ITR 201 (SC), which held that expenditure must be incurred to 'preserve and maintain' an already existing asset to qualify as 'current repairs'. The CIT (A) noted that the expenditure incurred by the appellant included significant amounts on materials like cement, iron sheets, aluminum sections, and teak/plywood, indicating new construction rather than mere repairs. Consequently, the expenditure was deemed capital in nature.The ITAT, after hearing both sides, concurred with the CIT (A)'s findings, emphasizing that expenditure bringing a new asset into existence or obtaining a new advantage is capital in nature. The reliance on the Madras High Court decision was found unhelpful as Explanation I to Section 32 of the Income-tax Act was not considered in that case. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer.In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.Order pronounced in open court on this 9th day of November, 2011.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
