9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as the "Tribunal"), all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocate for the respective parties, all these appeals are taken up for final hearing today. 2.0. All these appeals are Admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law. Shri K.M. Parikh, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent in each of the appeals. Tax Appeal No.778 of 2013 (i).Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding that the entire revenue expenditure of Rs. 82,14,000/cannot be allowed in assessment year 200506 when it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allowed in assessment year 200506 when it was incurred but must be spread over a number of years of benefit thereof to the company? (ii). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding that Rs. 3,36,224/being amortisation of lease rent for the land is capital expenditure? 3.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 0.03.2013 passed in ITA No. 180/AHD/2010 for AY 200607, the appellant - assessee has preferred present Tax Appeal No. 779 of 2013 to consider the following substantial questions of law. (i).Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding that the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d expenditure, more particularly, the aforesaid Corporate Debt Restructuring expenses in the relevant assessment years by observing that entire expenditure should not be allowed in the respective assessment years but it must be spread over a number of years of benefit of such reconstructing proportionately. The AO also held that Rs. 3,36,224/after amortisation of lease rent for the land is capital expenditure and also disallowed the same. Against the respective assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the respective assessment orders. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) in confirming the orders passed by the AO and disallowing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Division Bench of this Court relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 802 held that once the expenditure is held to be in revenue in nature incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, it can be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it is incurred. 5.1. Shri Shah, learned advocate for the respective appellant - assessee has submitted that even the question no.2 in Tax Appeal No. 778 of 2013 and Tax Appeal No.779 of 2013 and sole question in Tax Appeal No. 780 of 2013 i.e. whether the Tribunal is erred in holding that Rs. 3,36,224/after amortisation of lease rent paid for the land is a capital expenditure is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iss the present Tax Appeals. 7.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. The question no.1 in Tax Appeal Nos. 778 of 2013 and 779 of 2013 8.0. At the outset, it is required to be noted that and it is not in dispute that the assessee incurred the expenses of Rs. 82,14,000/in AY 200506 and Rs. 39,19,000/in AY 200607 and claimed the deduction treating as revenue expenditure. It is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal as well as learned CIT(A) has considered the same as revenue expenditure however disallowed the same in one year and held that it must be spread over a number of years of benefit of such restructuring proportionately. Therefore, the short question which is posed for the consideration of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 224/being amortisation of lease rent for the land is capital expenditure is concerned, on considering the decision of this Court in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (supra) as well as decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Auto Services Pvt. Limited (supra), we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in distinguishing the aforesaid decisions and not applying the same to the facts of the case on hand. Considering the aforesaid two decisions, it is to be held that the aforesaid lease rent was deductible as revenue expenditure and the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that Rs. 3,36,224/after amortisation of lease rent paid for the land is capital expenditure. Under the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
