9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the expenditure of Rs. 31,500 is of revenue nature or capital nature for the assessment year 1974-75. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the nature of expenditure incurred by the assessee for obtaining a lease of a shop. The assessee paid Rs. 31,500 as the first instalment of a lump sum payment required for acquiring a 17-year lease of a shop in Srinagar, in addition to a monthly rent of Rs. 300. The Income-tax Officer considered the payment as capital expenditure, disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal also held the payment to be of capital nature. The Tribunal noted that the lease agreement included a clause for the forfeiture of tenancy in case of rent default, indicating no benefit of enduring nature or capital asset acquired by the assessee. The Revenue contended that the payment of Rs. 31,500 was a premium for the lease and, as the lease was for 17 years, it constituted a capital expenditure. However, the Tribunal disagreed, ruling that the expenditure was of revenue nature and allowed it as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue challenged this decision, leading to the reference before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The High Court analyzed the payment in question, emphasizing that the sum paid for acquiring the 17-year lease was indeed a capital asset. Referring to established legal principles, the Court highlighted that the premium paid for a lease is typically considered capital expenditure, distinguishing it from periodical payments made for lease usage, which are treated as revenue expenditure. The Court concluded that the lump sum payment made by the assessee to acquire the lease was of capital nature, contrary to the Tribunal's finding that it was a revenue expenditure. In light of the above discussion, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the expenditure of Rs. 31,500 for obtaining the lease was of capital nature, not revenue nature. Consequently, the Court answered the question referred to it in the negative, supporting the Revenue's position. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs, settling the matter regarding the nature of the expenditure for the assessment year 1974-75.
|
