| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/468150 |
| Subject | Direct Taxation |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Decided On | Jan-23-1991 |
| Case Number | Income-tax Application No. 183 of 1990 |
| Judge | B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and ;G.D. Dube, JJ. |
| Reported in | [1991]189ITR153(All) |
| Acts | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256(2) |
| Appellant | Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Respondent | Grand Hotel |
Excerpt:
- - 1,26,536on the reconstruction of the hotel building is revenue expenditure and allowable ?' 2. we have seen the order of the tribunal as well as the order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals). the order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) clearly records the finding that there was no fresh construction and that what was indeed done was to restore the building to its earlier position and to repair the damage caused by the fire to the hotel building.b.p. jeevan reddy, c.j. 1. by this application under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, the revenue is asking for the following question to be referred : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the expenditure of rs. 1,26,536on the reconstruction of the hotel building is revenue expenditure and allowable ?'2. we have seen the order of the tribunal as well as the order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals). the order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) clearly records the finding that there was no fresh construction and that what was indeed done was to restore the building to its earlier position and to repair the damage caused by the fire to the hotel building. if this is the finding of fact, which has been accepted by the tribunal, the expenditure cannot be held to be capital expenditure.3. the application is, accordingly, dismissed. no costs.
Judgment:B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue is asking for the following question to be referred :
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 1,26,536on the reconstruction of the hotel building is revenue expenditure and allowable ?'
2. We have seen the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) clearly records the finding that there was no fresh construction and that what was indeed done was to restore the building to its earlier position and to repair the damage caused by the fire to the hotel building. If this is the finding of fact, which has been accepted by the Tribunal, the expenditure cannot be held to be capital expenditure.
3. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.