Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that, the assessee had incurred substantial expenditure towards renovation leading to enduring benefit. They were not merely repairs. The assessee had also incurred expenditure towards improvement and construction of the building. These could not be termed as “repairs”. Accordingly the expenditure incurred by the assessee was capital in nature and came within the mischief of Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act. (AY. 2002-03, 2003 -04)
CIT v. Viswams. (2019) 414 ITR 148/ 179 DTR 25/ 263 Taxman 497 / 310 CTR 228 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. RM K. Viswanatha Pillai and sons (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. Aremaky (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.) (HC) CIT v. Kjah Enterprises P. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. K. Sivakuar (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. K.V. Nellaiyappan (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business Expenditure—Capital or revenue—Repair- Lease premises-Expenditure on construction and renovation of premises taken on Lease—Held to be capital expenditure. [S. 32 (IA)]