9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the re-assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with 147 for the assessment year 1994-95 is invalid on the ground that no notice under Section 143(2) was served before framing the assessment? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure on renting a guest house is allowable as a business expenditure as per Section 37(4)? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Lucknow property which was exchanged for another property in respect of which the assessee had forgone the tenancy rights was acquired for a valuable consideration and allowing d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anding Counsel appearing for the Revenue pointed out that on the very same issue, this Court has passed an order in T.C.(A) Nos.1390 of 2005, 2436 of 2006 and 250 to 252 of 2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chennai Vs. M/s.Alsthom Ltd. (now known as Areva T&D India Ltd.) and held against the assessee. Thus the questions raised were answered in favour of the Revenue. As far as this claim made by the assessee is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the assessee placed before us a copy of the agreement with the landlord M/s.Motor Sales for surrender of tenancy rights and vacating the premises at Lucknow dated 05.09.1990 and the sale deed for the purchase of new premises by the assessee from M/s.Harsaran Singh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. M/s.Alsthom Ltd. (now known as Areva T&D India Ltd.), wherein, this Court pointed out that since there was a payment of consideration in exchange of the property, it could not be held that the assessee would be entitled to the depreciation of the property obtained. Thus this Court reversed the order of the Tribunal. 7. As far as the present case is concerned, we must point out to the agreement with the landlord, which showed the payment of consideration for the surrender of tenancy rights. The Revenue does not dispute the existence of such an agreement. It is also not disputed by the Revenue that the purchase of the premises by the assessee was from M/s.Harsaran Singh Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which had nothing to do with the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
