SURINDER MADAN Vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (Act, for short) by the assessee, an individual, relates to assessment year 2007- 08.

(2.) The appellant is engaged in export of garments and had incurred an expenditure of Rs.12,72,564/- in replacing the entire floor measuring about 9000 square feet with marble flooring in his factory and office. This amount represents purchase cost of marble and cost of laying/fixing the marble floor. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said amount holding that it was capital expenditure, since it was renewal or replacement of a profit yielding apparatus of the assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the said addition and observed that expenditure does not fall under Section 30(a)(ii) vide order dated 11th October, 2010. The Tribunal has upheld the view taken by the lower authorities by the impugned order dated 17th December, 2004.

(3.) In the appeal, by order dated 5th August, 2013, the following substantial question of law was framed: