Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Amway India Enterprises Pvt. ... on 4 November, 2011
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 13.09.2011
% Judgment delivered on: 04.11.2011
+ ITA No. 396/2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...... APPELLANT
Vs
M/S AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ..... RESPONDENT
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr Abhishek Maratha and Ms. Anshul Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Ms Mahua Kalra, Ms.
Husnal Syali and Mr. Rahul Sateeja
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. The captioned appeal pertains to the assessment year
2004-2005. In this appeal, the following issue arises for
consideration :-
Whether expenses incurred in the sum of
Rs.31,98,134/- incurred on improvement of
leasehold premises were in the nature of capital
expenditure? If so, whether the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (in short, the 'Tribunal') erred in
remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for
verification of the expenses incurred.
2. As regards this Issue the expenses incurred towards
improvement of leasehold premises which were situated at
Mumbai, Bangalore, Calcutta (now Kolkata) and Delhi were of the
same nature as was claimed in the assessment year 2002-03
namely flooring, partition, wiring, false ceiling, roofing, air
conditioning unit and duct, electric wiring, laying network for
setting up computers and on purchase of furniture, however,
there was an addition this year, namely creating workstations
etc. The Tribunal followed its decision in assessee's own case
and directed the assessing officer to allow the expenditure
incurred on lease hold improvements, except on account of
creating workstations etc., as revenue expenditure.
2.1 As regards to the expenditure incurred on creating
workstations etc. the Tribunal noted that the expenditure
incurred were for fixed capital assets and, therefore, in the nature
of capital rather than in the nature of current repair or for
renovating the existing old assets. Since the break up and detail
of expenses on account of creating new workstations were not
furnished, the Tribunal restored the issue qua creation of
workstation etc. to the file of the assessing officer for deciding it
afresh as per principle laid down in Bigjo's India Ltd. Vs. CIT,
[2007] 293 ITR 170 (Delhi).
3. We find this issue is covered by our judgment in the case of
Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/s Amway India Enterprises in
ITA Nos. 1344/2009 and 1363/2009.
4. In view of the above, no question of law arise for our
consideration and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There
shall, however, be no order as to costs.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J
NOVEMBER 04, 2011
yg/kk
