1984 (3) TMI 49 - HC - Income Tax

Renovation costs for business deduction approved by High Court under Income Tax Act

The High Court held that the expenditure on repairs and renovations by a registered firm, a tenant of a cinema theatre, was allowable as revenue ... Exemptions, Wealth Tax Issues involved: The issue involves determining whether the amount spent on renovation, addition, alterations, etc., to the furniture, fittings, etc., by a registered firm, a tenant of a cinema theatre, is allowable as revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act, 1961.Judgment Details:The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, referred the question to the High Court regarding the allowability of the expenditure incurred by the assessee on repairs to the building and furniture as revenue expenditure. The assessee claimed the sums as revenue expenditure for the year 1975-76, but the Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed it as capital expenditure. The Tribunal, however, allowed the expenditure as revenue expenditure, considering it as current repairs necessary for the business. The Revenue challenged this decision before the High Court.The High Court considered the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards repairs and renovations of the cinema theatre. It was observed that the expenditure was necessary for preserving and maintaining the theatre in a fit condition to attract more business. Referring to the test of enduring benefit, the Court concluded that the expenditure was for running the business more efficiently and profitably, not for acquiring an enduring asset. The Court cited precedents like Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT and held that the expenditure was on revenue account. The Court also referred to similar decisions by the Madras and Allahabad High Courts to support its view.The Department argued that the expenditure should be considered capital expenditure based on Section 32(1A) of the Act, which provides for depreciation on structures put up by lessees. However, the Court clarified that Section 32(1A) does not imply that all expenditure by lessees should be treated as capital expenditure. The Court held in favor of the assessee, stating that the Tribunal's decision was not erroneous or contrary to law.In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Department.