Dadha Pharma Private Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1293/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96592 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Revised return; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 14A; 37

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 1293/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 0 8 - 0 9 M/S. DADHA PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 268, LLOYDS ROAD, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI 600 014. [PAN: A AACD1265F ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , COMPANY CIRCLE I(4), NO. 121, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ I.T.A.NO. 1297 /MDS/201 3 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :200 8 - 0 9 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIR CLE I(4), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. DADHA PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 268, LLOYDS ROAD, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI 600 014. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A. B. KOLI, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 3 0 . 11 .201 5 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 17 .12 .201 5 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH E S E CROSS APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) - I II , CHENNAI , DATED 19 . 0 2 . 20 1 3 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 . THE ONLY EFFECTIVE I.T.A. NO S . 1297 & 1293 /M/ 13 2 GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF . 2,33,324/ - MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] R.W. RULE 8D FOR EARNING DIVIDEND OF 2,715/ - . IN THE REVENUE S APPEAL, THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT TOWARDS PAYMENT TO PF AND SECOND ISSUE PERTAINS TO ALLOWABILITY OF CURRENT REPAIRS . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PHARMACEUTICALS AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.09.2008 DECLARING LOSS OF .25,80,056/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D A REVISED RETURN ON 30.09.2008 DECLARING THE LOSS AT .16,01,096/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DE TAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .31,34,301/ - BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 3. WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF .2,33,324/ - UNDER SECTI ON 14A READ WITH RULE 8D, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF . 2,715/ - BEING TAX FREE DIVIDEND. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENQUIRED ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT ITS ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS OUT OF SURPLUS GENERATED FROM BUSINESS EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARN THIS EXEMPT INCOME. HOWEVER, THE I.T.A. NO S . 1297 & 1293 /M/ 13 3 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE USED ITS OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT AS WELL AS ITS STAFF AND ALSO THE INVESTMENTS MADE REQUIR ES SPECIALIZED ATTENTION TO MONITOR AND IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THERE WAS A HIDDEN COST IN THE OVERALL COST TO THE COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY BY APPLYING SECOND AND THIRD LIMBS OF RULE 8D, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AT .2,33,324/ - . 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.RULE 8D MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS MANY FOLD AND IT SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN THE DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AT THE BEST THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE RESTRIC TED TO THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME . 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND OF .2715/ - . BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE IS OUT OF ITS SURPLUS GENERATED I.T.A. NO S . 1297 & 1293 /M/ 13 4 FROM BUSINESS AND THAT IT WAS NOT OUT OF ANY BORROWALS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTED TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME. SINCE IT CANNOT BE RULED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTILIZED ITS OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT AND STAFF, A PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE BASED ON THE INVESTMENTS VALUED IN TERMS OF THIRD LIMB OF RULE 8D REQUIRES TO BE DONE. A CCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF .2,33,324/ - . THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN THE DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. T HE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. V. CIT 372 ITR 694 HAS HELD AS UNDER: HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL PARTLY, THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD NOT DISCLOSED WHY THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR ATTRIBUTING RS. 2,97,440 AS A DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A HAD TO BE REJECTED. THE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED FURTHER AND DETERMINE AMOUNTS IS DERIVED AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE ACCOUNTS AND REJECTI ON IF ANY, OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OR EXPLANATION. THERE WAS NO SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS ASPECT WENT COMPLETELY UNNOTICED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL. THE ENTIRE EXEMPT INCOME WAS RS. 48,90,000, WHEREAS THE DISALLOWANCE ULTIMATELY DIRECTED WORKED OUT TO NEARLY 110 PER CENT. OF THAT SUM, I. E., RS. 52,56,197. SECTION 14A OR RULE 8D OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962, CANNOT BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE EXEMPT INCOME IS TO BE DISALLOWED. THE WINDOW FOR DISALLOWANCE WAS INDICATED IN SECTION 14A AND WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE 'INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME'. THIS PROPORTION OR PORTION OF THE EXEMPT INCOME SURELY CANNOT SWALLOW THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SET ASIDE. THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO WAS SET I.T.A. NO S . 1297 & 1293 /M/ 13 5 ASIDE. THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 8 . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME O F . 2,715 / - . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED ANY EXPENSES TO EARN THE ABOVE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF . 2,33,324 / - BY INVOKING SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D. BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING EXCESSIVE DISALLOWANCE. THEREFORE, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN REVENUE S APPEAL, THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF PF AMOUNTING TO .1,02,818/ - IN THE ERNAKULAM BRANCH HAS NOT BEEN REMITTED WITHIN THE DUE DATES UNDER THE PF ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THA T SINCE THE BELATED PAYMENTS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) R.W. SECTION 2(24)(X), HE DISALLOWED THE SAME. I.T.A. NO S . 1297 & 1293 /M/ 13 6 10. ON APPEAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DHARME NDRA SHARMA 213 CTR 609 (DEL) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AIMIL LTD. 321 ITR 508, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE LD. DR STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE HON BLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AIMIL LTD. (SUPRA) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN ITC LTD. 112 ITD 57 (KOL) (SB) AND ALSO IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH GODAVERI (MANNAR) SAHAKARI 298 ITR 149 (BOM). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED BY IT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NEXUS COMPUTER (P) LTD. [2009] 313 ITR 144 HAS HELD THAT THE PF AND ESI CONTRIBUTION PAID BELATEDLY, BUT PRIO R TO DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ISSUE . ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO S . 1297 & 1293 /M/ 13 7 13. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS REVENUE IN NATURE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSER VED THAT UNDER REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE (OTHERS), THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED .59,47,601/ - AND WHEN THE DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED LEDGER COPY AND ALSO PRODUCED THE BILLS FOR VERIFICATION. AFTER VERIFICATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT OUT THESE EXPENDITURES, AN AMOUNT OF .43,29,728/ - WAS INCU RRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE RENOVATION OF HOTEL PROPERTY AT PHALODI. ON GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS FILED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED BULK QUANTITY OF BUILDING MATERIALS LIKE CEMENT, BRICKS, IRON & STEEL, FLOORING MATERIA LS, ETC. AND ALSO NOTICED THAT CEMENTS WERE PURCHASED IN THE RANGE OF 40 TO 50 BAGS AND IRON & STEEL WERE PURCHASED IN HUGE QUANTITIES IN KILOGRAMS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT SUCH HUGE QUANTITIES OF MATERIALS COULD HAVE BEEN USED ONLY TO EXTEND THE PROPERTY TO CARRY OUT REALLY MAJOR REPAIRS WHICH WILL GIVE ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE RUNNING INTO NUMBER OF YEARS AND IT IS ONLY BUT FAIR THAT THESE EXPENDITURES WERE ALSO CLAIMED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME BY CLASSIFYING IT AS CAPITAL EXPE NDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT SOME OF THE EXPENDITURE RELATES TO SOME MINOR REPAIR ITEMS, OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF .43,29,728/ - SPENT FOR RENOVATION OF HOTEL PROPERTY AND THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE OF .33,31,189/ - WAS TREATED IT AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. I.T.A. NO S . 1297 & 1293 /M/ 13 8 14. ON APPEAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. OOTY DASAPRAKASH 237 ITR 902, THE LD. CIT(A) AND TREATED THE EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE IN NATURE AND ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND THE LD. D R HAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED AN ANNEXE TO THE BUILDING THEREBY BRINGING IN A NEW ASSET, WHEREAS, IN THE CASE CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. OOTY DASAPRAKASH (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT MINOR REPAIR WOR KS. THEREFORE, INCURRING EXPENDITURE FOR CREATING AN ANNEXE TO THE BUILDING CANNOT BE TREATED AS CURRENT REPAIR AND IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 16. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILED SUBMISSION, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A HOTEL INDUSTRY AT PHALODI, RAJASTHAN, WHICH IS A HERITAGE BUILDING. TO STRENGTHEN THE 250 YEARS OLD STRUCTURES OF HAVELIS AND PRESERVING ITS ANCIENT APPEARANCE , B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY CONTESTED THAT WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITION TO THE NUMBERS OF ROOMS OF THE HOTEL, THE SIZE OF THE RESTAURANT, ETC., RENOVATION, RE PAIRS, ETC. WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE EXISTING BUILDING . IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT WHEN THERE I.T.A. NO S . 1297 & 1293 /M/ 13 9 WAS NO ENHANCEMENT OF THE ROOMS OF THE HOTEL OR THE SIZE OF THE RESTAURANT, THERE IS NO ENHANCEMENT OF THE EARNING CAPACITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE CONSIDERED THE EX PENDITURE AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF REPAIR WORKS CARRIED OUT IN THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR, DETAILS OF BILLS FOR THE MATERIALS PURCHASED AND USED FOR THE REPAIR WORK, ETC. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS NOT THE CASE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS DOUBTED THE REPAIRING WORKS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENHANCED THE EXISTING ROOMS/RESTAURANT. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROCURED BULK QUANTITY OF BUILDING MATERIALS LIKE CEMENT, BRICKS, IRON & STEEL, FLOORING MATERIALS, ETC. AND TO CARRY OUT SUCH BULK QUANTITY OF BUILDING MATERIALS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT MINOR REPAIRS. IT HAS TO BE SEEN THE BUILDING CONDITION IN WHICH THE MATERIALS SO PURCHASED WERE USED FOR REPAIRING WORK. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REPAIR WORKS WERE CARRIED OUT IN A HERITAGE BUILDING, WHICH IS MORE THAN 250 YEARS OLD AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURR ED THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS REPAIR OF THE BUILDING VIZ., IN THE GROUND FLOOR : (I) RENOVATE THE WALLS/FLOOR OF THE EXISTING LOBBY RED STONE, BAJRI & GITTY, (II) CENTRAL COURTYARDS TO BE OPENED UP TO ALLOW FOR AIR CIRCULATION, (III) ACCOUNTS & ADMINISTRA TION DEPARTMENT WAS SHIFTED BEHIND THE RECEPTION, (IV) FLOORING OF THE STAIRCASE TO BE REPLACED, I.T.A. NO S . 1297 & 1293 /M/ 13 10 (V) PASSAGE BETWEEN KITCHEN AND RESTAURANT WALLS AND FLOORING TO BE REPLACED, (VI) OPEN UP THE WALLS OF THE RESTAURANT TOWARDS THE SWIMMING POOL, (VII) TE RMITE INFESTED WOODEN DOORS TO BE REPLACED AND IN THE FIRST FLOOR (I) TOILETS TO BE RENOVATED TILES TOOKAL & (II) ROOF OF FIVE EXISTING ROOMS ROOF TO BE PATCHED. OVER AND ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSTRUCTED ANY ANNEXE TO THE EXISTING BUILDING. FURTHER, THE REVENUE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THERE IS AN ADDITION TO THE ROOMS/RESTAURANT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING OR CREATED ANY ANNEXE TO THE BUILDING AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. DR. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGH TLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. OOTY DASAPRAKASH (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS IN REPAIRING AND MODERNISING THE HOTEL AND REPLACING THE EXISTING COMPONENTS OF A PORTION OF THE BUILDING, FURNITURE AND FITTINGS COULD NOT AT ALL BE STATED TO BE OF ENDURING IN NATURE, IN THE NATURE OF BEING A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE; BUT, DEFINITELY SUCH AN EXPENDITURE WOUL D FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN NATURE TO BE ALLOWED . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCO RDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY I.T.A. NO S . 1297 & 1293 /M/ 13 11 THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THUS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 17 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 17 TH DECEMBER , 20 15 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 17 . 1 2 .201 5 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.