DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 23/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3509 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C GUPTA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Commercial expediency; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 37(1); 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR I.T.A NO. 23/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 DCIT, CIRCLE 1 (1), ROOM NO. 390, C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI. VS. AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. PLOT NO. 5 DDA LSC, OKHLA INDL. ESTATE, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI P.C. GUPTA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI TARANDEEP SINGH, CA ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 29.10.2009 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06. TH E SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREA TING THE EXPENDITURE OF ITA NO. 23/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 2 RS. 28,77,270/- AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3856075/- WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESS EE ON IMPROVEMENT OF LEASE HOLD PREMISES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF ITAT PASSED IN ASSTT. YEAR 2001- 02 AND 2002-03. THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IS REPORTED IN 27SOT 344. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05, TH E TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF ITAT PASSED IN ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 AND 2002-03. THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES EXHIBITING VARIOUS HEADS UNDER WHICH THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED, WAS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L IN THOSE YEARS THEREFORE, FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE ISSUE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO. THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXP ENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WOODEN FURNITURE AND AIR CONDITIONING. IN THE PR ESENT ASSTT. YEAR THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES HAVE DULY BEEN NOTICED BY THE L D. CIT(A) ON PAGE 3. OUT OF THESE TOTAL EXPENSES LD. CIT(A) ALREADY DISA LLOWED SUM OF RS. 504376/- ATTRIBUTABLE TO WOODEN FURNITURE, RS. 4140 29/- FOR PANEL WORK AND LIGHTS, RS. 60400/- IN RESPECT OF NEONSIGN BOA RD. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WHILE UPHOLDING THE CAPITALIZATION OF RS. 978805/-. LD. DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE C ONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . ITA NO. 23/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 3 2. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISS UE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 164/DEL/2008 FOR THE ASS TT. YEAR 2003-04 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 AND 2002-03. THE O BSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THESE YEARS READ AS UNDER :- 4. A COMMON GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN BOTH BY ASSESSEE AN D REVENUE WITH REGARD TO TREATMENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON LEAS EHOLD IMPROVEMENT. WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON L EASE HOLD IMPROVEMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,46,57,910, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS OF LEASE HOLD IMPROVEMENT FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT IS SEEN THAT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED ON FL OORING, PARTITION, WIRING, PLUMBING, FALSE CEILING, ROOFING, INTERIOR WORK, AI R-CONDITIONING DUCT, NETWORKING FOR COMPUTER PURPOSES, ELECTRIC WIRING E TC. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO CAPITAL ASSET CAME INTO EXISTENCE IS NOT CORRECT AS MOST OF THE WORK, WHICH HAVE BEEN DONE W ILL GIVE ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR EXAMPLE, FLOORING, FALSE CEILING, AIR-CONDITIONING DUCT, NETWORK CABLING AND ELECTRICAL FITTINGS ETC., DO NO T GET BAD IN A YEAR OR EVEN IN THREE/FOUR YEARS TIME. IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE BUILDINGS ARE NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS IT IS HAVING SAME PREMISES FOR LASTS SEVERAL YEARS AND INTENDS TO KEEP THESE PREMISES FOR COMING YEARS ALSO. IN FACT, MODERN OFFICES MAINTAINED BY MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES LIKE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF PROVIDING SEPARATE ROOMS. IN THESE OFFICES, ONLY WOODEN PARTITIONS ARE PROVIDED. JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE MADE OF WOOD OR ALUMINIUM, THEY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE OF TEMPORARY IN NATURE BE CAUSE WOOD OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY IS USED IN THEIR CONSTRUCTION. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF AC UNIT, FURNITURE ETC. IN THIS LEASE HOLD IMPROVEMENT, WHICH CAME TO NOTICE ONLY WHEN THE DET AILS WERE CALLED FOR. MOREOVER, THE EXPENDITURE ON CARPETS, VENETIAN BLIN DS, LAN INSTALLATION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE OF REVENUE IN NATURE. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. A.R. AFTER HIGHLIGHTIN G THE DETAILS OF THE RENOVATION EXPENDITURE AS PLACED ON RECORD WITH RES PECT TO VARIOUS PREMISES TAKEN BY IT ON LEASE AND CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDI TURE THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES DO NOT BRING INTO EXISTENCE THE ASSET OF ENDURING N ATURE, AND THE EXPENDITURE SO ITA NO. 23/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 4 INCURRED WAS ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, F OR COMMERCIAL USE OF THE LEASED PREMISES AND ALSO TO GIVE PROPER OUTLOOK TO THE OFFICE AND TO CREATE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD AND GOOD WORKING ENVIRONMENT AS PER THE MULTINATIONAL WORK CULTURE. AFTER SPENDING VARIOUS EXPENSES ON R EFURBISHMENT SUCH AS WOODEN PARTITION, PANELLING, FLOORING, PLUMBING ETC ., HE CONTENDED THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF LEASED PREMISE S FROM WHERE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET ANY ENDURING BENEFIT. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALS O DRAWN TO THE CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DEED ACCORDING TO WHICH VACANT POSSESSION WAS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE LANDLORD, MEANING THEREBY WHATEVER TEMPORARY RE NOVATION/REFURBISHMENT WAS DONE, WAS REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED WHILE GIVING P OSSESSION BACK TO THE LANDLORD. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HO NBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. V. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 1 WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF A BENEFIT SPREAD OVER A NUMBER OF YEAR S, THE EXPENDITURE WOULD BE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT, WHERE THE EXPENDITURE MERELY FA CILITATE ASSESSEES TRADING OPERATION OR ENABLING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS TO BE CARRIED ON MORE EFFICIENTLY AND MORE PROFITAB ILITY WHILE LEAVING THE PHYSICAL CAPITAL UNTOUCHED, SUCH EXPENDITURE WOULD BE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT EVEN THOUGH THE ADVANTAGE MAY ENDURE FOR AN INDEFIN ITE FUTURE. ACCORDINGLY, TEST OF ENDURING BENEFIT WAS HELD TO BE NOT TO APPL Y BLINDLY AND MECHANICALLY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE GIVEN CASE. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF DELHI H IGH COURT IN CASE OF MODI SPG. & WVG. MILLS CO. LTD. V. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 544 , WHEREIN THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON LEASE HOLD IMPROVEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING THE BUSINESS WAS HELD TO BE REVENUE IN NATURE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENTION OF LD. D.R. WAS THAT HUGE EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN INCURRED, WHICH RESULTED INTO ENDURING BENEFIT , THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS CORRECTLY HELD AS CAPITAL IN NATURE A ND LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION THEREON . RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN CASE OF ASIAN HOTELS WHEREIN EXPENDITURE ON RENOVATION AND REFURBISHING THE HOTE L BUILDING WAS HELD TO BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE CASE LAWS REFERRED TO BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS AND CITED BY THE LD. A.R. AND LD. D.R. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US , IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE INSTANT CASE. FROM THE RECORDS, WE FO UND THAT ASSESSEE- COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DIRECT SELLIN G OF PERSONAL CARE, HOME CARE, COSMETIC, NUTRITION AND WELLNESS PRODUCTS THR OUGH ITS CHAIN OF DISTRIBUTORS ALL OVER INDIA. DURING THE COURSE OF S CRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ITA NO. 23/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 5 ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED H UGE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF LEASE HOLD IMPROVEMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2.59 CRORES IN RESPECT OF ITS DELHI, MUMBAI AND CALCUTTA OFFICES. AS REQUI RED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPLETE DETAILS OF LEA SE HOLD IMPROVEMENTS INCURRED IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT OFFICES. THE PREMI SES ON WHICH THE ALLEGED EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WERE UNDISPUTEDLY NOT OWNE D BY THE ASSESSEE BUT WERE ON LEASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 32, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 APPLIES EV EN IN THE CASES WHERE THE BUILDING, ON WHICH CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED, IS NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INC URRED FOR RENOVATION, IMPROVEMENT, OF ANY STRUCTURE IN THE BUILDING IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND THE SAME ARE ELIGIBLE ONLY FOR CLAI M OF DEPRECIATION. AS PER THE DETAILS FILED, WE FOUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE WE RE INCURRED ON FLOORING, PARTITION, WIRING, FALSE CEILING, ROOFING, ENTIRE W ORK OF AIR-CONDITIONING DUCT, NETWORKING FOR COMPUTER PURPOSES, ELECTRIC WIRING E TC. AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS OPERATING AS PER CONCEPT OF MULTINATION AL COMPANIES, THERE WERE NO CONCEPT OF PROVIDING SEPARATE ROOMS AND ONL Y WOODEN PARTITION WERE PROVIDED. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE NATURE OF EX PENDITURE SO INCURRED, WE FOUND THAT BY INCURRING THESE EXPENDITURE EXCEPT EXPENDITURE. AIR- CONDITIONING DUCT AND FURNITURE, NO NEW ASSET HAS C OME INTO EXISTENCE AND THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED WAS ON ACCOUNT OF COMME RCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND FOR THE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE LEASE HOLD PREMISES A ND TO GIVE PROPER OUTLOOK TO THE OFFICE AND TO CREATE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD OF GOOD WORKING ENVIRONMENT ON MULTINATIONAL WORK CULTURE. THE EXPE NDITURE WAS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 37(1) WHICH PROVIDE THAT ANY EXPENDIT URE, NOT IN THE NATURE DESCRIBED UNDER SECTIONS 30 TO 36 AND NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR PERSONAL EXPENDITURE AND WHICH IS LA ID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, SHALL BE A LLOWED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF REFURBISHMENT, WOODEN PARTITION/PANELLING, FLOORING , PLUMBING WORK, ELECTRIC WORK, LAYING DOWN OF CABLES ETC., ARE ESSENTIALLY R EVENUE IN NATURE. AS THE EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED ON LEASE HOLD PREMISES, A SSESSEE DID NOT GET ANY ENDURING BENEFIT ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. TH E EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED COULD NOT BE REMOVED OR REUSED AT THE TIME OF VACATING THE LEASED PREMISES. IN CASE OF MODI SPG. & WVG. MILLS CO. LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT WHERE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN TWO FLATS OF THE BUILDING FOR A PERIOD OF 11 MONTHS, BUT RENEWABLE FOR 10 PERIODS OF 11 MONTHS EACH, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITEMS LIKE FIXING FALSE CEILING, PA INTING, MAKING SOME STRUCTURAL CHANGES, FIXING OF DOORS IN THE COMMON WALLS BETWEE N THE FLATS ETC. IT WAS HELD TO BE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING CARR YING OUT OF ITS BUSINESS, ACCORDINGLY REVENUE IN NATURE. ITA NO. 23/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 6 8. WHERE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING BUSINESS OF ROAD TRANSP ORT, CONSTRUCTED A LOFT IN THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE OFFICE PREMISES TAKEN ON LE ASE AND WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND O F EXPENDITURE BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT EXP ENDITURE INCURRED ON CONSTRUCTION OF LOFT WAS NEITHER FOR EXISTING NOR F OR ADDITION TO THE PREMISES. THE ASSESSEE WAS PUTTING THE AVAILABLE OFFICE SPACE TO ITS OPTIMUM USE FOR ACCOMMODATING THE LARGE STAFF OF 30 MEMBERS, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN GREATER EFFICIENCY BY IMPROVING THE WORKING CONDITIONS BY C ONSTRUCTING THE LOFT AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BRING INTO EXISTENCE ANY ASSET OF A PERMANENT NATURE BECAUSE ON THE SURRENDER OF LEASE, THE OPTION OF THE LESSOR OF THE PREMISES IN WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE, WAS EITHER TO PAY COMPENSAT ION OF THE TAKEN OVER IMPROVEMENTS OR TO PERMIT THE LESSEE TO REMOVE THE IMPROVEMENTS. FOLLOWING WAS THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT : WE HAVE NO DOUBT IN OUR MIND, THAT THE AIM AND PUR POSE OF THIS ITEM OF EXPENSES ENTAILED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LOFT IS TO ATTAIN GREATER EFFICIENCY AND AVOID INEFFICIENCY THAT MAY RESULT B Y MAKING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF WORK IN A CRAMPED SPACE. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION AND WITHOUT VIOLENCE TO THE LANGUAGE, C AN IT BE URGED THAT THE ASSESSEE, BY CONSTRUCTING THE LOFT, WAS SEEKING TO BRING INTO EXISTENCE AN ASSET OF A PERMANENT NATURE BECAUSE ON THE SURRE NDER OF THE LEASE, THE OPTION OF THE LESSOR OF THE PREMISES IN WHICH T HE SAME IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE IS EITHER TO PAY COMPENSATION AND TAKEN OV ER THE IMPROVEMENT OR TO PERMIT THE LESSEE TO TAKE AWAY AND REMOVE THE IMPROVEMENT. WE DO NOT THINK, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE TENUR E OF THE LESSEE IN THE PREMISES AND THE INTERNAL STRUCTURAL CHANGES MADE T HEREIN, AND PARTICULARLY THE SOLE AIM AND PURPOSE OF SUCH CHANG ES, THAT IT CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY CLAIMED, WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE CLAIMED BY THE REVENUE, THAT THE EXPENSES ARE OF CAPITAL NATURE. . . . 9. EVEN THE EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION OF ROOMS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR ENJOYMENT OF LEASE HOLD PREMISES, THE HONBLE MADRA S HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MALABAR MILLS 288 ITR 815 (SIC) HELD THAT EXPENDITU RE SO INCURRED WAS OF REVENUE IN NATURE AS THE ASSESSEE CARRIED SOME IMPR OVEMENTS FOR BETTER ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY. SINCE THE BENEFITS DERIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE CO- TERMINUS WITH THE LEASE, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY; EN DURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WAS THEREFORE, HELD TO BE DEDUCT IBLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEP RECIATION WAS DISMISSED. 10. A FINE DISTINCTION WAS MADE BY THE LD. A.R. WITH R ESPECT TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPAIRS AND CURRENT REPAIRS. HE SUB MITTED THAT UNDER CLAUSE (1) OF SUB-SECTION (A) OF SECTION 30, ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS IF THE PREMISES A RE OCCUPIED AS A TENANT WHEREAS UNDER CLAUSE (II) IF THE PREMISES ARE OCCUP IED OTHERWISE THEN AS A ITA NO. 23/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 7 TENANT, MEANING THEREBY AS OWNER, THE AMOUNT PAID B Y HIM ON ACCOUNT OF ONLY CURRENT REPAIRS OF THE PREMISES IS TO BE ALLOWED. T HUS, IN CASE OF OWNERS OCCUPIED PROPERTY ONLY CURRENT REPAIRS IS TO BE ALL OWED WHEREAS IN CASE OF OCCUPANTS OTHER THAN OWNERS, ALL REPAIRS WHETHER CU RRENT OR ACCUMULATED REPAIRS, IS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 30. TAKING THE SAME ANALOGY, WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTI ON OF LD. A.R. THAT SINCE ASSESSEE WAS IN OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING ON LEASE , WHOLE OF THE REPAIRS IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED AND NOT ONLY THE CURRENT RE PAIRS. FOR THIS PURPOSE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HI LINE PENS (P.) LTD. [2008] 175 TAXMAN 132, ORDER DATED 15-9-2008, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTI ON BETWEEN EXPRESSION REPAIRS AND CURRENT REPAIRS AND THE WORD REPAIR IS MUCH W IDER THEN EXPRESSION CURRENT REPAIRS. WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE, CAN BE CONSTRUED TO BE REPAIRS, IT HAS NOT BROUGHT ABOUT A NY NEW ASSET NOR ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING BENEFIT. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS TOWARDS REPAIRING AND UPGRADED OF THE PREMISES TAKEN ON LEA SE SO AS TO MAKE IT MORE CONDUCTIVE TO ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. 11. RECENTLY, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF EXPO RT FINANCE LTD. 206 (IT4)-GJX-0341-DELHI, HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRE D ON PROVIDING WOODEN PARTITION, PAINTING, GLASS WORK AND OTHER REPAIRS T O THE LEASE HOLD PREMISES WAS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y MERIT IN THE ACTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR DISALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON IMPROVEMENT OF THE LEASE HOLD PREMISES, EXCEPT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON AIR-CONDITIONING UNIT AND FURNITURE. 3. IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR WE DID NOT FIND THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF IMPR OVEMENT IN LEASE HOLD PREMISES. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT YEAR LD. CIT( A) HAS NOTICED ALL THESE ASPECTS. THE DETAILS HAVE DULY BEEN NOTICED O N PAGE 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THESE DET AILS WE ARE SATISFIED THAT ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN THE LINE OF FIND ING OF ITAT IN ASSTT. YEAR ITA NO. 23/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 8 2001-02 AND 2002-03. THUS WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THIS ORDER. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.7.2010. SD/- [K.G. BANSAL ] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23.7.2010 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT