2011 (1) TMI 928

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... est of commercial expediency, even the benefit may be enduring, on the facts and circumstances the expenditure is revenue to be allowable u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act - Hence, the expenditure on Black Rose Tennis Court by the appellant firm is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act and hence the disallowance of Rs.2,19,466/- is deleted - These appeals is dismissed.
MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 607 and 608 of 2010 as they arise from common order of the Tribunal dated 16.7.2009 and involve similar questions of law. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 607 of 2010. 2. This appeal h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Assessing Officer. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short "the CIT (A)"] who while partly allowing the appeal gave a relief of Rs.9,67,520/- to the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the department took the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 16.7.2009 upheld the view of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the expenses incurred on construction of tennis court are allowable as revenue expenses or are capital in nature. 6. The Assessing Officer had disallow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yncotts International and Haryana State Sports Complex, Faridabad and District Sports Council, Faridabad and the newspaper cuttings places at pages 91, 92 & 93 of the paper book, it becomes quite evident that the appellant firm had no ownership on this court and it was with the State Administration. The tennis court came into existence with the brand name of the appellant firm "Black Rose", and, therefore, it was explained to be in the nature of advertisement because the expenditure itself was borne by the appellant firm for the sake of advertising its brand name Black Rose. Moreover, the expenditure is also not of capital nature as the AO has pointed out because according to him it has an enduring benefit. As the law now stands, the Apex C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X