2012 (6) TMI 288 - HC - Income Tax

Capital gains - Valuation of plot as on 1.4.1981 - held that - The CIT(A) and the Tribunal after noticing that there was transaction of sale of land by the Improvement Trust on 1.6.1981 and other comparable sale instances had accepted the fair market value of the land at Rs. 330/- per square yard as on 1.4.1981. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to point out any error in the aforesaid finding which may warrant interference by this Court. - Decided in favor of assessee. Revenue or capital expenditure - Expenses incurred as demolition charges - held that - the business of the assessee had continued till 31.3.1995 as the Assessing Officer himself had allowed business expenses till that date. - the assessee had to spend demolition charges in respect of structure that had caught fire and for which major repair was undertaken. - Therefore, the demolition charges and the repairing charges , were held to be admissible to the assessee. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of plot as on 1.4.1981 for calculating long term capital gains, and whether expenses incurred as "demolition charges" and "repairs of building" were revenue expenditure.

The judgment pertains to an appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The first issue concerns the valuation of a plot for calculating long term capital gains. The assessee had valued the plot at Rs. 350 per square yard as on 1.4.1981, while the Assessing Officer contended it should be Rs. 60 per square yard based on an allotment made by the Improvement Trust. The Tribunal upheld the fair market value of the land at Rs. 330 per square yard as on 1.4.1981, considering comparable sale instances and a transaction by the Improvement Trust. The Court found no error in this finding, leading to dismissal of the appeal on this issue.

Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal accepted that the "demolition charges" and "repair expenses" were revenue expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the mill premises had caught fire, requiring reconstruction of a boundary wall and major repairs. The continuity of the business during this period was acknowledged, and it was established that the expenses were necessary for the restart of business activities. The Tribunal held that no capital asset was generated by the repairs, confirming the expenses as revenue in nature. The Court found no justification to interfere with this finding, ultimately dismissing the appeal on this ground as well.

In conclusion, the substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favor of the assessee. As a result, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decisions on both issues.