9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated November 28, 2002, made in I.T.A. No. 936(Mds)/97 on the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras. When the appeal came up for hearing, this court has admitted the same on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue receipt and also disallowed the expenditure of "front end fee" as capital expenditure. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal erred in following the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Sivakami Mills Ltd. [1997] 227 ITR 465, wherein the Supreme Court dealt with guarantee commission and not with "front end fee" or loan processing charges. Heard the counsel. During the year of account the assessee obtained sanction for a term loan of Rs. 820 lakhs from the IDBI. While availing of the above loan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly revenue expenditure. The Tribunal correctly followed the principle enunciated in the judgment reported in CIT v. Sivakami Mills Ltd. [1997] 227 ITR 465 (SC) and decided the case in favour of the assessee. We find no error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, we answer the second question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
