2017 (12) TMI 411 - HC - Income Tax

High Court rules on 100% depreciation claim for interior decoration expenses, emphasizing revenue nature.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the claim of 100% depreciation on interior decoration. It found ... Depreciation on temporary wooden structure for interior decoration effected to the buildings and the showrooms - Held that:- In order to bring into existence the showroom of a particular brand, the assessee carried out certain specific interior works involving interiors, furniture and equipment in the premises, which was leased out to the assessee and that the interior decoration works were carried out in line with the specifications of the brand, whose products were sold by the assessee as a retailer-franchisee depending upon the terms of the agreement. After knowing the factual position, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took into consideration the decisions referred above and came to a conclusion that for the interior decoration works done by the assessee in the leased premises, it cannot be stated that the assessee is deriving any enduring benefit nor it can be stated that any capital asset has been created in favour of the assessee. This factual finding was affirmed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. Issues:1. Claim of 100% depreciation on interior decoration.2. Nature of expenditure - revenue or capital.3. Substantial questions of law raised before the High Court.Issue 1: Claim of 100% Depreciation on Interior DecorationThe respondent, a retailer in garments and a commission agent deriving income from house property, claimed 100% depreciation on temporary wooden structure for interior decoration in the buildings and showrooms. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim citing Explanation (1) to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided in favor of the assessee based on factual analysis, noting that the interior works were specific to the brand sold by the assessee and did not create any enduring benefit or capital asset. The Tribunal affirmed this finding, leading to the High Court's consideration of whether the claim for 100% depreciation was justified.Issue 2: Nature of Expenditure - Revenue or CapitalThe crux of the matter revolved around determining whether the expenditure on interior decoration should be treated as revenue or capital in nature. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal concluded that the interior works did not result in an enduring benefit or the creation of a capital asset for the assessee. The High Court emphasized that the issue was factual rather than a question of law, citing various decisions and the specific terms of the agreement between the assessee and the brand whose products were sold. The High Court, after examining the factual matrix, upheld the findings that the expenditure did not lead to any enduring benefit or creation of a capital asset, thus establishing the nature of the expenditure as revenue in line with the decisions referred to.Issue 3: Substantial Questions of Law Raised Before the High CourtThe High Court addressed the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue, focusing on whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure on interior decoration was revenue in nature and not capital. The High Court clarified that the issue at hand was primarily factual and did not amount to a substantial question of law. By referring to relevant legal precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeals. The High Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the principles of law applicable to such cases under the Civil Procedure Code equally apply to appeals under the Income Tax Act.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the High Court's decision on each aspect of the case.