9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o whether the entire discount had to be paid in the year of redemption or whether the same had to be spread over, namely, the period for which the debentures were issued. The findings and conclusions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were distinguished by the Tribunal and in our opinion, rightly. That was done to deal with the two contentions of the Revenue, namely that the expenditure was capital in nature and alternatively even if it is considered to be revenue expenditure, it should have been spread over the duration or the entire period of the debentures. Meaning thereby, the date on which the debentures could become redeemable as per its terms. The Tribunal held that if the debentures were redeemed by the Assessee prior to the period for wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and against the Revenue. Following the Judgment of the Division Bench pertaining to identical question, we hold that the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law in relation to question No. 1. 4) In relation to question No. 2 at page 4 of the Appeal paper book, Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the Appeal does raise substantial question of law. He points out the Tribunal's order and submits that the Assessing Officer as also the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) both made additions of ₹ 65,80,000/. That was on account of disallowance of premium paid on redemption of debentures. Both, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner, held that this is in the nature of capital expenditure. The Assessee derived benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be a discharge of liability of a capital nature. The debenture was redeemed prematurely so as to save the cost of interest. 6) Mr. Pardiwalla therefore submits that the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and deserves to be dismissed. 7) We have perused para 34 and 35 of the order passed by the Tribunal. In the facts peculiar to this case, it is not necessary for us to decide any wider controversy. The premium was paid on premature redemption of debentures. The expenditure was incurred in the previous year and was termed to be a allowable deduction. The Tribunal held that in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 225 ITR 802 (SC), which was the other Judgment rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
