1 IT APPEAL NO.3162-09 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3162 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 ..Appellant Vs. Airlines Financial Support Services (India) Pvt Ltd. ..Respondent Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant Mr. F. B. Andhyarujina Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Sameer Dalal for the Respondent CORAM : V C DAGA AND R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 20th September, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 The findings recorded by the Tribunal reads as under: “Again, in the case of CIT Vs. Ayesha Hospitals (P) Ltd. (Supra) Hon’ble Madras High Court had held that expenditure on painting, re-laying of damaged floors in the land premises were to be allowed as revenue expenditure and could not be considered as capital expenditure of the nature mentioned in explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act. In the light of the above decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and also for the reasonings mentioned by us, we are of the opinion that the claim of expenses for renovation and improvement work in the lease-hold premises ought to have been allowed to assessee. Therefore, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and hold that the repairs of Rs.35,47,375/- claimed by the assessee was allowable.” 3 Having seen the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is difficult to hold 2 IT APPEAL NO.3162-09 that the view taken by the Tribunal is a perverse view. The Tribunal after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case have taken a plausible view in the matter. The appeal is without any substance. Hence, the same stands dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [V C DAGA, J]