Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Amway India Enterprises Pvt. ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 5359 Del

*                     THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment reserved on: 13.09.2011
%                                             Judgment delivered on: 04.11.2011

+                                   ITA No. 629/2011


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

2005-2006. In this appeal, the following issue arises for

consideration :-

Whether expenses incurred in the sum of Rs.28,77,270/- 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 as

follows:

Nature of Work Amount (Rs.) Civil work, Plumbing, Sanitary Work (i.e., 307,180/- Granite Flooring, tiling of walls, bathroom fittings, installation of soap dispenser, paper holder etc.) Interior work (i.e., False ceiling, partitions, 1,304,569/- flush door, sliding door, vertical blind etc.) Wooden furniture 5,04,376/-

Finishing Work (i.e., painting, POP etc.) 1,94,001/-

Electrical work: 8,26,827/-

Installation of switches, laying down wires & cables, earthing, LAN etc. Panel work 414,029/-

Lights, Speakers, Exhaust fan, halogen, 119,133/- Light, etc. Archietctural consultancy 1,25,560/-

     Neonsign Board                                     60,400/-
     Total                                              38,56,075/-

3. The Tribunal sustained the adjudication made by CIT(A)

wherein he had held that expenditure made on account of

wooden furniture (Rs. 5,04,376/-), panel work (Rs. 4,14,029/-) and

neosign Board (Rs 60,400/-) aggregating to total of Rs. 9,78,805/-

as capital in nature and the remaining expense, aggregating to

total of Rs 28,77,270/- as revenue expenditure.

4. 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.

5. 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