9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respective Corporate Debt Restructuring expenses was revenue expenditure and the same was required to be allowed in the respective assessment years. Lease rent was deductible as revenue expenditure. - TAX APPEAL NO. 778 of 2013, TAX APPEAL NO. 779 of 2013, TAX APPEAL NO. 780 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2013 - MR. M.R. SHAH and MS SONIA GOKANI MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellants MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as such with respect to very assessee but different assessment years and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal was right in law in upholding that ₹ 3,36,224/being amortisation of lease rent for the land is capital expenditure? Tax Appeal No.780 of 2013 (i).Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding that ₹ 3,36,224/being amortisation of lease rent for the land is capital expenditure? 3.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 0.03.2013 passed in ITA No. 179/AHD/2010 for AY 200506, the appellant assessee has preferred present Tax Appeal No. 778 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing 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 ₹ 3,36,224/being amortisation of lease rent for the land is capital expenditure? 4.0. It appears that while filing the return of income for AY 200506, the assessee claimed the deduction in the year under consideration of Corporate Debt Restructuring expenses of ₹ 82,14,000/as a revenue expenditure. Similarly, for AY 200607, the assessee claimed the deduction of Corporate Debt Restructuring expenses of ₹ 39,19,000/as a revenue expenditure in the very year i.e. AY 200607. 4.1. That in the respective years i.e. AY 200506 to AY 200708, the assessee claimed the deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of such reconstructing proportionately. The learned Tribunal has also held that amount of ₹ 3,36,224/after amortization of lease rent paid for the land is a capital expenditure. 4.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, the assessee has preferred present Tax Appeals to consider aforesaid substantial questions of law. 5.0. Shri Manish Shah, learned advocate for the appellantassessee has vehemently submitted that so far as substantial question of law with respect to Corporate Debt Restructuring Expenses to be treated as a revenue expenditure and it must be allowed in the assessment years when it was incurred is squarely covered by the decision of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / or illegality in confirming the order passed by the AO as well as learned CIT(A) holding that the entire expenditure of Corporate Debt Reconstructing expenses should not be allowed in the single year but it must be spread over for number of years for benefit of such reconstructing proportionately. 6.1. It is further submitted by Shri Parikh, learned counsel for the revenue that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly distinguished 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). Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Calcutta Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch of this Court has 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. In view of the above direct decision of this Court, question no.1 in respective appeals is required to be held in favour of assessee and against the revenue by holding that the respective Corporate Debt Restructuring expenses of ₹ 82,14,000/in AY 200506 and ₹ 39,19,000/in AY 200607 was revenue expenditure and the same was required to be allowed in the respective assessment years. The question no.2 in Tax Appeal Nos. 778 of 2013 and 779 of 2013 and sole question in Tax Appeal No.780 of 2013 9.0. Now, so far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
