9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N. BARUAH J. --- At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, " the Act ") : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not erred in holding that expenditure of Rs. 87,20,598 incurred in the construction of railway track and siding was of the nature of revenue expenditure a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed deduction of Rs. 17,44,120 in each assessment year of 1981-82 and 1982-83. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same. According to him, the expenditure was a capital expenditure for the obvious reason that the assessee acquired an asset of an enduring nature. The assessee took up the matter by way of appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re profitable and advantageous manner. In the rival contentions of counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue as well as on behalf of the assessee, it is to be seen whether under the facts and circumstances of the case it can be said that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of the ape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f railway track and siding was revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction. The next point is whether deduction can be divided and claimed in five parts. However, no provision is found under the law permitting allowance of one-fifth of the expenditure. However, deduction can be made in the relevant year if the same is incurred during that y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
