Judgment ( 1. ) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, has referred the following question under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), for the opinion of this court : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the investment of Rs. 1,05,377 on repairs to building was made for the enduring benefit and it cannot be termed as business expenditure ?" The assessee had taken a building on rent at Rs. 1,500 per month from Tej Kumar Sethi. The said building was in a very bad shape and the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,15,377 and claimed this expenditure as business expenditure but it was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer considered it to be a capital expenditure and made an addition of the same after allowing depreciation at the rate of ten per cent. under Section 32 (1a) of the Act. The addition was maintained in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ). ( 2. ) IN further appeal to the Tribunal, in view of the fact that investment in the building was made by the assessee when the assessee was occupying the building by virtue of the sale agreement without paying any rent under the belief that it will own the property very soon, the Tribunal observed that the investment was made for the enduring benefit which could not be termed as a business expenditure. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is the nature of the advantage derived from the investment made which is decisive of the matter and since the amount has been expended in carrying out the essential repairs, it could not have been said that it was for enduring benefit. In this connection he has referred to the decision in CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468 (SC ). The facts of the said case are quite distinguishable. In that case, the premises had been obtained on a very low rent on condition of constructing the building in place of the old building, thus, resulting in saving of revenue expenditure (rent) for a period of 39 years. The facts of the said case are quite distinguishable. In that case, the premises had been obtained on a very low rent on condition of constructing the building in place of the old building, thus, resulting in saving of revenue expenditure (rent) for a period of 39 years. It was in context of these facts that their Lordships observed that it was a revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the Department has invited attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 900. In that case the Government agreed to construct a road subject to the cost being shared by the appellants and others. The appellants contribution came to Rs. 26,100. The assessee, therefore, sought deduction of this amount as business expenditure which was not allowed. It was observed that having the new road constructed for the improvement of transport facilities was an enduring advantage for the business of the assessee and the expenditure incurred by the assessee was of a capital nature. ( 4. ) IN CIT v. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. [1981] 130 ITR 385 (Mad), it has been held that expenditure for partition, wall panelling, construction of show windows are revenue expenditure. The facts are distinguishable, as in the present case, the sale agreement was executed between the assessee and the owner of the property--Shri Tej Kumar Sethi-- who happens to be the father of the two directors of the company and out of the stipulated consideration of Rs. 2,50,000, Rs. 1,50,000 was given in advance by the assessee to the owner of the building and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000 is to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed. As per the agreement the assessee is not required to pay any rent to the owner of the land as he is entitled to interest accrued on the advance payment made to the owner. Investment in the construction and repairs was made after the execution of the agreement to sale under the belief that the assessee will own the property very soon. The facts of the present case are, therefore, also distinguishable from the other cases cited by learned senior counsel, i. e. , CIT v. Bhagat Industries Corporation Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 645 (P and H) and Girdhari Dass and Sons v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 339 (All ). The facts of the present case are, therefore, also distinguishable from the other cases cited by learned senior counsel, i. e. , CIT v. Bhagat Industries Corporation Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 645 (P and H) and Girdhari Dass and Sons v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 339 (All ). In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 1,05,377 was not revenue expenditure. We, therefore, answer the question against the assessee.