Cit v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶1The 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

remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the expenses incurred.

¶2As 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/-

¶3The 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

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.

¶4We 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.

¶5In 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

* 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 Vs 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 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?