2003 (5) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the following question for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. [1980] 122 ITR 49 and thereby holding that the expenditure incurred in restoring the swimming pool and the boundary wall were allowable as revenue expenditure?" The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also endorsed the view taken by the Income-tax Officer. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has taken a view that the swimming pool and boundary wall were there prior to demolition and by the court's order both were restored and, therefore, whatever expenditure has been incurred was for the purpose of business and it should be allowed as revenue expendi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The facts are not in dispute that the assessee has claimed expenses on construction of swimming pool and boundary wall as revenue expenses as they were in existence earlier and after demolition both were reconstructed. In Kalyanji Mavji's case [1980] 122 ITR 49 (SC), their Lordships have allowed the expenditure for renovating the building and machinery which are requisitioned and later on de-r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X