IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
   ITA 320/2013  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I 
 . 
 ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Versus 
 . 
 CB RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH AISA P. LTD. 
 . 
 ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through Nemo. 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
     17.07.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 This appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of CB Richard Ellis 
 South Asia Private Limited relates to Assessment Year 2003-04. 
 . 
 2. The respondent-assessee had taken a premises on rent for a period 
 of three years and had incurred expenditure of Rs.54,26,906/- on 
 maintenance and repairs. This expenditure was disallowed and treated by 
 the Assessing Officer as capital expenditure.  Commissioner of Income Tax 
 (Appeals) held that expenditure to the tune of Rs.10,43,285/- was capital 
 in nature but the balance expenses of Rs.43,83,621/- were of revenue 
 character as they related to converting a big hall into a more suitable 
 office space by dismantling, disposal, plumbing and toilet work, brick 
 work, plaster, water proofing, gypsum partition, door frame, door 
 shutter, partition, storage etc. 
 . 
 3. The said view has been affirmed by the tribunal with the direction 
 that in respect of Rs.10,43,285/-, nature of expenses will be re-examined 
 by the Assessing Officer after opportunity to the respondent.  The 
 tribunal in the impugned order has specifically noted that the lease 
 agreement permitted the respondent-assessee to make temporary alterations 
 in the leased premises and no new asset of enduring nature had come into 
 . 
 existence.  The assessee had incurred the expenditure on temporary erections and to make the premises habitable for their use during the 
 period of the lease.  Expenditure incurred on renovation in the rented 
 premises was revenue in nature and towards current repairs. 
 . 
 3. The said findings are as per and in consonance with two decisions 
 of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Hi Line Pens Private 
 Limited (2008) 306 ITR 182 (Delhi) and unreported decision in CIT versus 
 Amway India Enterprises Private Limited (ITA No. 346/2012 decided on 18th 
 May, 2012).  Keeping in view the findings of fact recorded by the 
 tribunal and the nature and character of the expenditure incurred and the 
 two judgments of the Delhi High Court quoted above, no substantial 
 question of law arises for consideration and the appeal is dismissed in 
 limine. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 JULY 17, 2013    SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. 
 . 
 VKR/NA 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 43. 
 .