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>High Court rules disputed sum as revenue expenditure, allows 100% depreciation on temporary constructions.</h1> <h3>M/s. Comfort Living Hotels P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-III</h3> M/s. Comfort Living Hotels P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-III - [2014] 363 ITR 182 Issues:1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was capital in nature and not revenue expenditureRs.2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no depreciation was allowable on a sum of Rs. 3,59,803 claimed as expenditure on temporary constructionsRs.Analysis:Issue 1: The assessee, engaged in the hospitality business, claimed a sum towards building repairs and expenses. The Assessing Officer accepted part of the explanation but added Rs. 5 lakhs as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) found the expenditure to be revenue expenditure, setting aside the Assessing Officer's findings. However, the ITAT disagreed, relying on precedent and reinstated the disallowance. The assessee contended that the entire expenses should be treated as revenue expenditure, enhancing income generation without creating new assets. The High Court observed that the ITAT did not adequately address the CIT(A)'s reasoning, emphasizing that the renovation only increased the sitting capacity without creating new assets. Citing relevant case laws, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding the expenditure as revenue.Issue 2: The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on temporary constructions, which the AO disallowed due to the use of marble and false ceiling. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on similar reasoning. The High Court noted that the constructions were unauthorized and later demolished, indicating they were for workers' convenience. Considering the circumstances, the Court found the depreciation claim reasonable and upheld the CIT(A)'s view. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee against the Revenue on this issue as well.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal without costs, holding in favor of the assessee on both issues.
TaxTMI 