9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rs. 10,205 as capital in nature by not accepting the contention of that it is an allowable revenue expenditure. 2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in a rented building at Erode belonging to S/Shri Venkatachalam and s. Muthuswamy. The assessee had only taken the premises on rent of Rs. 550 per month. The relevant Asst. yr. 1975-76 is the second year of the lease for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was acquired by the assessee by such expenditure and that the assessee did not get any enduring benefit. He relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Girdghari Dass and Sons vs. CIT 1975 CTR (All) 156 : (1976) 105 ITR 339 (All). On the other hand, the ld. Deptl. Rep. strongly relied on the order of the AAC and urged that the same should be confirmed. 4. Even though the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture on the rented shop". The facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the said Allahabad High Court decision. The assessee is not the owner of the premises and simply because the assessee spent sum of Rs. 10,205 in the aforesaid contractions in the rented building, he does not get any enduring benefit of a capital nature as they only formed part of the premises of the landlords. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
