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>Court affirms disallowance of excess depreciation on leased premises, orders detailed assessment.</h1> <h3>M/s. Cadensworth (India) Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I (3), Chennai</h3> M/s. Cadensworth (India) Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I (3), Chennai - TMI Issues:1. Whether the expenditure incurred towards temporary structure on leased business premises is capital in nature and not allowable as revenue expenditureRs.2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not considering and applying the ratio of various decisions of the High Court and Tribunal cited before themRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The assessee, engaged in servicing computers and trading telecommunication products, filed a return for AY 2008-2009 admitting an income of Rs. 3,35,31,354. The Assessing Officer disallowed excess depreciation claimed on furniture, fittings, and temporary structures in leased premises, treating it as capital expenditure. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the structures provided enduring benefits, remaining the property of the assessee. The Tribunal referred to Explanation-1 to Section 32 and distinguished cases cited by the assessee, concluding in favor of the Revenue. The assessee contended that a major part of the expenses did not result in an enduring asset, challenging the application of Explanation-1. The Court noted that detailed examination of expenses was lacking and ordered a de novo assessment by the Assessing Officer.Issue 2:The Tribunal did not delve into the nature of expenses under each sub-head, failing to differentiate between current repairs and capital repairs. It was observed that a Division Bench had previously ruled that temporary structures like false ceilings could not be categorized as capital expenditure. The Court highlighted the need for a meticulous examination of each expense sub-head to determine its classification accurately. The impugned order was set aside, directing a reassessment by the Assessing Officer. The questions of law proposed by the assessee were left open for consideration post reassessment.In conclusion, the Court disposed of the Tax Case (Appeal) without costs, emphasizing the importance of a detailed assessment of expenses to differentiate between revenue and capital expenditure, as per the facts and relevant case law.
TaxTMI 