B & A Plantations & Industries Ltd. (Formerly M/s Barasali Tea Co. (P) Ltd.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2000 TaxPub(DT) 1089 (Gau-HC) : (2000) 242 ITR 0022 : (2001) 117 TAXMAN 0323 B & A Plantations & Industries Ltd. (Formerly M/s Barasali Tea Co. (P) Ltd. () INCOME TAX --Capital or revenue expenditure----EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON RENOVATION OF OFFICE PREMISESOffice premises was taken on lease-- Catch Note: In the circumstances of the case, looking to nature of expenditure and items involved no new capital asset was acquired, therefore, expenditure incurred on renovation of leased hold office premises was revenue in nature. Held: Considering the nature of the expenditure and the items involved it cannot be said that the expenditure was capital in nature as it will not endure any capital benefit to the assessee and the assessee has not acquired any capital asset. The wall papers, partition walls marble flooring provided in the premises will not be an asset when the premises will be vacated. The expenditure was apparently in the nature of business expenditure for proper carrying of the business. Therefore, the expenditure was revenue expenditure and the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in terming it as capital expenditure. Case Law Analysis: CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 740 (SC) applied. Application: Also to current assessment year. Decision: In favour of assessee. Date of Judgment: 10 December 1999 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2000 TaxPub(DT) 1089 (Gau-HC) : (2000) 242 ITR 0022 : (2001) 117 TAXMAN 0323

B & A Plantations & Industries Ltd. (Formerly M/s Barasali Tea Co. (P) Ltd. ()

INCOME TAX

--Capital or revenue expenditure----EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON RENOVATION OF OFFICE PREMISESOffice premises was taken on lease--

Catch Note:

In the circumstances of the case, looking to nature of expenditure and items involved no new capital asset was acquired, therefore, expenditure incurred on renovation of leased hold office premises was revenue in nature.

Held:

Considering the nature of the expenditure and the items involved it cannot be said that the expenditure was capital in nature as it will not endure any capital benefit to the assessee and the assessee has not acquired any capital asset. The wall papers, partition walls marble flooring provided in the premises will not be an asset when the premises will be vacated. The expenditure was apparently in the nature of business expenditure for proper carrying of the business. Therefore, the expenditure was revenue expenditure and the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in terming it as capital expenditure.

Case Law Analysis:

CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 740 (SC) applied.

Application:

Also to current assessment year.

Decision:

In favour of assessee.

Date of Judgment:

10 December 1999