What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the issue was covered by a previous judgment and that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The assessee incurred expenses on the improvement of leasehold premises. The Tribunal held that a portion of these expenses were capital in nature, while the rest were revenue expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses incurred on improvement of leasehold premises were capital expenditure and if the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter for verification.

CIT vs Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd | Delhi High Court 2011

ITA 629/2011

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. 629/2011

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 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 2011:DHC:5594-DB

ITA 629/2011

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 as follows: Nature of Work Amount (Rs.) Civil work, Plumbing, Sanitary Work (i.e., Granite Flooring, tiling of walls, bathroom fittings, installation of soap dispenser, paper holder etc.) 307,180/- Interior work (i.e., False ceiling, partitions, flush door, sliding door, vertical blind etc.) 1,304,569/- Wooden furniture 5,04,376/- Finishing Work (i.e., painting, POP etc.) 1,94,001/- Electrical work: Installation of switches, laying down wires & cables, earthing, LAN etc. 8,26,827/- Panel work 414,029/- Lights, Speakers, Exhaust fan, halogen, Light, etc. 119,133/- Archietctural consultancy 1,25,560/- Neonsign Board 60,400/- Total 38,56,075/-

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 2011:DHC:5594-DB

ITA 629/2011

Page 3 of 3

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 2011:DHC:5594-DB

CIT vs. AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments