https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770908 The HC ruled in favor of the assessee regarding expenditure incurred on leasehold property. The court held that expenses for carpentry, electrical work, painting, false ceiling, wall repairs, pest control, camera installation, and maintenance contracts were revenue expenditure due to their recurring nature and necessity for business operations. The Tribunal's finding that simultaneous incurrence of these expenses constituted reconstruction was deemed perverse, as no structural modifications occurred per the rental agreement. The court clarified that Explanation (1) to Section 32(1)(ii) enables lessees to claim depreciation on capital assets but doesn't convert all lessee expenditure to capital nature. The assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770908 The HC ruled in favor of the assessee regarding expenditure incurred on leasehold property. The court held that expenses for carpentry, electrical work, painting, false ceiling, wall repairs, pest control, camera installation, and maintenance contracts were revenue expenditure due to their recurring nature and necessity for business operations. The Tribunal's finding that simultaneous incurrence of these expenses constituted reconstruction was deemed perverse, as no structural modifications occurred per the rental agreement. The court clarified that Explanation (1) to Section 32(1)(ii) enables lessees to claim depreciation on capital assets but doesn't convert all lessee expenditure to capital nature. The assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770908