Skip to content


Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalsukhrai Jaidayal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 836 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1979]117ITR466(All)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 37
AppellantAddl. Commissioner of Income-tax
RespondentDalsukhrai Jaidayal
Appellant AdvocateR.K. Gulati and ;A. Gupta, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateS.B.L. Srivastava, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....third question relates to the expenditure of rs. 2,000 spent on the construction in renovation of bath rooms, urinals and fitting of a gate and widening of a gate. the tribunal held that this was an admissible deduction under section 37 of the i.t. act, 1961. the assessee was carrying on business in rented premises. he was a tenant of 40 to 50 years' standing. the bath rooms and urinals required face lifting. he spent this sum of rs. 2,000 for renovating the bath rooms and urinals and partly for fitting a gate. the tribunal has held that in the particular circumstances of the present case it can be said that by this expenditure no new asset came into existence. it was also found that by that expenditure no asset of an enduring nature was brought into existence.3. we have heard learned.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. The first two questions referred to us relate to the allowability of Mandir, Gaushala and Dharmada payments. These questions were decided by a Full Bench of our court in Thakur Das Shyam Sundar v. Addl. CIT : [1974]93ITR27(All) which has been approved by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. : [1979]116ITR60(SC) . In view of these decisions, the first two questions have to be answered in favour of the assessee.

2. The third question relates to the expenditure of Rs. 2,000 spent on the construction in renovation of bath rooms, urinals and fitting of a gate and widening of a gate. The Tribunal held that this was an admissible deduction under Section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee was carrying on business in rented premises. He was a tenant of 40 to 50 years' standing. The bath rooms and urinals required face lifting. He spent this sum of Rs. 2,000 for renovating the bath rooms and urinals and partly for fitting a gate. The Tribunal has held that in the particular circumstances of the present case it can be said that by this expenditure no new asset came into existence. It was also found that by that expenditure no asset of an enduring nature was brought into existence.

3. We have heard learned counsel. We are inclined to agree with the Tribunal. The third question also has to be answered in favour of the assessee.

4. In the result, all the three questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //