9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antial question of law as to whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the addition on account of revenue expenditure capital in nature u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs. 37,04,458/- as revenue expenditure. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O observed that the said expenditure was towards acquisition of a capital expenditure and therefore not entitled to deducted as revenue expenditure. On appeal the CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition to the extent of the said amount and sustained the remaining addition. On further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the decision of CIT(A) with regard to interest payment to the tune of Rs. 37,04,458/- and deleted the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 the assessee had claimed expenses to the tune of Rs. 99,18,607/- and Rs. 97,62,536/- respectively as revenue expenditure and that the assessee had initially capitalized these expenses in the books of account which was duly audited by the Chartered Accountant. He submitted that while filing return of income the assessee claimed the amounts as allowable expenditure. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ghanshyam Steel work ltd reported in (2010) 195 Taxman 180 (Guj) wherein it is held that in a case of new unit being merely an expansion of the existing business of the assessee and not setting up of a new business the expenses incurred in that regard wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37 of the Act. In the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the approach adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) as confirmed by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, can be stated to arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. " 9. In the present case also there seems to be an expansion in the existing unit of business. The issue in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the aforesaid case. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. 10. In the premises aforesaid, the question raised in the present appeals are therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
