2017 (12) TMI 411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee as a retailer-franchisee depending upon the terms of the agreement. After knowing the factual position, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took into consideration the decisions referred above and came to a conclusion that for the interior decoration works done by the assessee in the leased premises, it cannot be stated that the assessee is deriving any enduring benefit nor it can be stated that any capital asset has been created in favour of the assessee. This factual finding was affirmed by the Tribunal in the impugned order.
T. S. Sivagnanam And M. Sundar, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. T. Ravikumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumar JUDGMENT ( Judgment was delivered by T. S. Sivagnanam, J. ) Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel accepts noti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee for 100% depreciation in view of Explanation (1) to Section 32(1), which was inserted by the Taxation Law (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,1986 with effect from 01.4.1988. 5. The assessee carried the matter on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Revenue filed the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which were dismissed, as against which, these appeals have been filed before this Court, raising the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the large sums of money incurred towards interior decoration, which gives enduring be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ced reliance on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the cases of (i) CIT Vs. Ayesha Hospitals (P) Ltd. [reported in 292 ITR 266]; (ii) Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. DCIT [reported in 350 ITR 324]; (iii) CIT Vs. Armour Consultants P. Ltd. [reported (2013) 355 ITR 418]; (iv) CIT Vs. Amrutanjan Finance Ltd. [reported in (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 392] and (v) M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas Asset Management Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Chennai [ITA. Nos.518 & 519/Mds/2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench dated 07.1.2011]. 10. After considering the factual matrix and examining the terms and conditions in the letter of intent issued by M/s.Titan Industries Limited dated 15.3.2012, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X