TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Payments for building leased premises treated as revenue expenditure and deductible, not capital investment eligible for depreciation</h1> SC dismissed the appeals with costs, holding the sums spent on constructing the new premises were revenue, not capital, expenditure. The assessee did not ... Nature of construction of a new building - revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - sale of motor parts - lease of premises for a period of 39 years - expenditure in the relevant assessment years as capital loss - claimed depreciation on capital investment - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the building expenses are not liable to be taken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving at the real income of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69? - HELD THAT:- The only advantage which the assessee derived by spending the money was that it got the lease of a new building at a low rent. From the business point of view, therefore, the assessee got the benefit of reduced rent. The High Court has, therefore, rightly considered this as obtaining a business advantage. The expenditure is, therefore, to be treated as revenue expenditure. In the present case also, since the asset created by spending the said amounts did not belong to the assessee but the assessee got the business advantage of using modern premises at a low rent, thus saving considerable revenue expenditure for the next 39 years, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court have rightly come to the conclusion that the expenditure should be looked upon as revenue expenditure. In the premises, the appeals are dismissed with costs. Issues:1. Determination of whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee in constructing a new building is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.2. Interpretation of the nature of the benefit obtained by the assessee through the construction of the new building.3. Application of legal tests to distinguish between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure.4. Analysis of relevant case laws where expenditure led to an enduring benefit but did not result in ownership of the asset by the assessee.Issue 1: Determination of Expenditure NatureThe assessee, a limited company engaged in the sale of motor parts, constructed a new building on leased premises. The lease agreement allowed the assessee to demolish the existing premises and build a new structure without compensation to the lessors. The Income-tax Tribunal treated the construction expenditure as revenue expenditure, allowing deduction. The Department contended it was capital expenditure. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view, stating the expenditure was revenue expenditure as it secured a long lease of suitable premises at a low rent.Issue 2: Benefit AnalysisThe assessee's expenditure aimed to secure a long lease of a new building at a reduced rent. The new building, although not owned by the assessee, provided a substantial saving in monthly rent for 39 years. The commercial advantage gained was lower expenditure in the form of rent, indicating a revenue expenditure nature.Issue 3: Application of Legal TestsThe Supreme Court referred to the Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. case to distinguish between capital and revenue expenditure. The court emphasized that expenditure leading to an enduring asset for trade benefit is capital expenditure. In this case, as the building did not belong to the assessee and the only advantage was reduced rent, the expenditure was rightly treated as revenue expenditure.Issue 4: Analysis of Relevant Case LawsThe court examined cases like Lakshmiji Sugar Mills, L. H. Sugar Factory, and Associated Cement Companies, where expenditure created enduring benefits but not ownership of assets. In each case, the expenditure was considered revenue expenditure as it facilitated business operations without acquiring capital assets. The court emphasized that the expenditure's purpose was to conduct business profitably, similar to the present case where the assessee obtained a business advantage through reduced rent without acquiring ownership of the building.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the expenditure as revenue expenditure due to the enduring business advantage gained through reduced rent without ownership of the asset.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
