TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e" 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law to be set aside and that of the AO be restored" 2. The assessee has filed cross-objection taking following grounds : "1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs.5,21,173; 2. The ld. CIT(A) has also erred in disallowance of repairs and maintenance of Rs.6,23,144/-; 3. The ld. CIT(A) has also erred in not allowing full rebate u/s 88E of The Act; 4. The respondent craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new grounds which may be necessary" 3. Ground No.2 of the cross-objection is connected with ground of appeal taken by department. The relevant facts are that the assessee is in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs, wooden frames, decorative veneers and timbers used for doors and windows, marble slabs for flooring and various lamp shades. That the renovation was more in the nature of interior works for making the office premises more suitable for the office running. The ld.CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that the expenditure aggregating to Rs.11,01,465/- is revenue in nature and the balance of Rs.6,23,144/- is to be disallowed. It is relevant to state that the ld. CIT(A) has given the nature of the description of items for which he disallowed the claim of the assessee as revenue expenditure at page 5 of the impugned order. It is also relevant to state that the assessee also filed a list giving detail at page 3 of the paper book of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6 are the expenditures towards current repairs and whereas the items mentioned at Sr.No.7 to 10 of the above details are not pressed for. Ld.AR submitted that the expenditure are incurred to renovate office premises by replacing the electrical fittings and door frames etc. as the building was old one. Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT V/s S. Zoraster & Co. (1982) 133 ITR 559 (Raj) and submitted that if the expenses are incurred merely to renovate the office premises, same are allowable as revenue expenditure. He submitted that no new assets has been created by incurring the said expenses. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of ld. Representatives of the parties, orders of auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,750/- ,(8) Safes, strong boxes and parts Rs. 12,974/-, (9) 2/8 W CFL panos with glass ring Rs. 16,706.00 and (10) Eureka forbes Rs. 8,330/- aggregating to Rs.1,27,760/- cannot be said to be an for renovation of the building. Therefore, out of the total expenditure of Rs.17,24,609/-, we hold that save and except the expenditure of Rs.1,27,760/- i.e Rs.15,96,849/- is the revenue in nature, the expenditure incurred towards current repairs for renovation and the repairs of the premises in connection with the business of the assessee and the same is to be allowed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, the ground of appeal taken by the department is rejected and whereas the Ground No.2 of the cross-objection taken by assessee in its cross- objection....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment made and earning of the dividend income to the extent of Rs.29,88,190/-. We also observe that the AO in the assessment order has referred the provision of section 14A (2) of the Act as well as CBDT notification dated 24.3.2008 for applying Rule 8D and to make disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. Considering the facts of the case and the nature of business of the assessee, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act of Rs.5,21,173/- is in order. Accordingly, Ground No.1 of Cross-objection is rejected. 12. In respect of Ground No.3 of the cross-objection, the ld. AR referred the order of ld. CIT(A) that ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that the AO computed r....