ASIAN HOTELS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI

ITA 844/2007

Page 1 of 4

$ ~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment Pronounced on: 09.10.2023

+ ITA 844/2007

ASIAN HOTELS LTD.

..... Appellant Through : Mr Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. with Ms Aakanksha Kaul, Mr Aman Sahai, Mr Kumar Sambhav and Mr Adit Khorana, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI.... Respondent Through : Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Sanjeev Menon, Jr Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Court hearing/ Hybrid hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.:

ITA 844/2007

Page 2 of 4

“renovation and repair” expenses, partly capitalized in the books of account of the Assessee is not the revenue expenditure admissible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is correct? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that payment made to Gherzi Eastern Ltd., an interior architect, Rs.2,85,170/- for consultancy and supervision of interior décor of the existing hotel of the Assessee under “renovation and refurbishment” is capital expenditure?” 3. We have dealt with pari materia substantial questions of law while deciding ITA No.1398/2006, concerning AY 1992-93, which was treated as the lead matter with the consent of counsels for the parties. 4. We may note that the only difference that obtains in the questions of law framed in ITA No.1398/2006 concerns the quantum of fees paid to the consultant. 4.1. In the instant AY, i.e., AY 1995-96, the fees paid to GEL was Rs.2,85,170/-, whereas, in AY 1992-93, GEL was paid fees amounting to Rs.23,18,695/-. 5. We may note that the AO via the assessment order had disallowed Rs.2,41,99,144/- incurred by the appellant/assessee on account of “renovation and refurbishment”. Likewise, Rs.2,85,170/- paid by the appellant/assessee as a professional fee to GEL was also disallowed. 5.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”] via order dated 29.10.1997 remanded the issue concerning “renovation and refurbishment” to the AO with a direction to pass a fresh order after examining the relevant details and making appropriate inquiries. 6. Insofar as the payment of fees to GEL amounting to Rs.2,85,170/- Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:10.10.2023 11:32:37 Signature Not Verified

ITA 844/2007

Page 3 of 4

was concerned, the CIT(A) sustained the disallowance made by the AO. 7. Upon the matter travelling to the Tribunal, it disallowed the entire expenditure on “repairs and renovation” amounting to Rs.12,86,23,144/- [ Rs.2,41,99,144 + Rs.10,44,24,000] (which included expenses that had been initially capitalized by the appellant/assessee and were claimed for the first time before the Tribunal as revenue expenditure). 7.1 Furthermore, the Tribunal in consonance with the view taken by the AO and CIT(A), disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant/assessee concerning Rs.2,85,170/- paid as fees to GEL. 8. Having regard to the judgment rendered in ITA No.1398/2006, the instant appeal is disposed of with the following directions, as the view taken in the said appeal will apply mutatis mutandis to the instant case as well: 9. The appellant/assessee will be entitled to claim the following deductions, as, in our opinion, they are in the nature of revenue expenditure: (i) Rs.2,41,99,144/- incurred on renovation, refurbishment and repairs. (ii) Rs.2,85,170/- incurred on payment of fees to GEL. 9.1 Insofar as the amount of Rs. 10,44,24,000/- is concerned, which was initially capitalized and was claimed as revenue expenditure for the first time before the Tribunal and forms part of the additional grounds raised by the appellant/assessee in its appeal preferred before the Tribunal, it would stand remanded to the AO for examination of the character and nature of the expenses incurred, having regard to the principles adverted to in ITA 1398/2006. 10. Thus, the first question of law as framed is answered in favour of the appellant/assessee and against the revenue, with the caveat that insofar as the expenses that were the subject matter of the additional grounds taken Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:10.10.2023 11:32:37 Signature Not Verified

ITA 844/2007

Page 4 of 4

before the Tribunal, the issues concerning the same shall stand remanded to the AO for further examination on merits. 11. The second question of law is answered in favour of the appellant/assessee and against the revenue. 12. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(RAJIV SHAKDHER) JUDGE

(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE OCTOBER 9, 2023/aj

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:10.10.2023 11:32:37 Signature Not Verified