1988 (4) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that existed in front of the factory gate. The expenditure of Rs. 27,892 had been capitalised and was not claimed as a revenue expenditure before the ITO. A claim was, however, made before the AAC, who did not admit the additional ground. However, on a further appeal to this Tribunal, the ground was allowed to be raised. That is how the CIT (A) has decided this contention against the assessee and it is in appeal before us. 3. The admitted facts are that a cremation ground existed in front of the factory gate of the assessee. The cremation ground belonged to the Notified Area Committee, Modi Nagar. The assessee wanted the cremation ground to be shifted to another place. The land could not be shifted and only its use could be changed. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a park in front of the factory gate is also for the benefit to the employees and the assessee's business visitors and, therefore, the expenditure for bringing about that park is an expenditure for business purposes. It was also contended that a cremation ground is an undesirable thing and amounted to a nuisance and, therefore, the removal of a nuisance from near the factory, the continuance of which was likely to affect the mental health of the assessee's employees was an act of business expediency and, therefore, the expenditure is a proper business expenditure. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative conceding that the existence of a cremation ground in front of the factory gate was an unseemly sight, contended th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. are not applicable to the facts before us and if there is anything therein it is in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there may be cases where expenditure even incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit may, nonetheless, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense. Similarly the other two rulings relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative have no application to the present case. 7. Looking to the facts of the present case and the nature of expenditure, we are of the view that the expenditure in question relates to the removal of an unseemly sig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X