COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal partly allowed the expenditure as revenue, while remanding the issue of workstation expenses to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The High Court found the issue covered by its previous judgment.
What were the facts?
The assessee incurred expenses on improving leasehold premises, including flooring, partitions, and creating workstations. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow most of these expenses as revenue expenditure, except for workstations.
What were the issues?
Whether expenses on leasehold improvements are capital or revenue expenditure, and the treatment of expenses for creating new workstations.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Bigjos India Limited v. CIT19 citing293 ITR 170 · 2007 · HC
ITA 396/2010
Page 1 of 3
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
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
Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to Reporters or not ?
Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
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 2011:DHC:5591-DB
ITA 396/2010
Page 2 of 3
remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the expenses incurred.
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). 2011:DHC:5591-DB
ITA 396/2010
Page 3 of 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.
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 2011:DHC:5591-DB
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026