9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals, we heard these appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. Shri Sailendra Mamidi, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the first issue arises for consideration in the Revenue's appeal is with regard to incentive given by the Government for exploring new market for exports. According to the Ld. D.R., when this issue came before this Tribunal for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 in I.T.A. Nos.47 & 48/Mds/2016, this Tribunal found that the Government of India provided incentive for exploring new market across the globe. Exploring a new market for a specified area would expand the market area of the assessee, therefore, the incentive given by Government of India for exploring the new mark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mamidi, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee took a vacant land on lease and constructed a building. The cost of construction of the building was claimed as revenue expenditure. Placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal for assessment years 2011-12 and 2-12-13 in I.T.A. Nos.101, 102 & 103/Mds/2016, the Ld. D.R. submitted that on identical situation, this Tribunal remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the matter in the light of the judgment of jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. However, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) found that the expenditure of Rs. 1,54,10,800/- was revenue expenditure. Accordingly, he allowed the same. In respect of electrical fitti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter. The CIT(Appeals) after considering the order of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12, examined the matter independently and found that the ownership of the building was with lessor, therefore, the construction of the building cannot be said to be one which brings an enduring benefit to the assessee. Accordingly, by following the judgment of Apex Court in Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the judgment of Madras High Court in TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. (supra), the CIT(Appeals) found that the cost of construction of Rs. 1,54,10,800/- incurred by the assessee is on the revenue field and accordingly he allowed the same. 7. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he extent of Rs. 1,54,10,800/- as revenue expenditure. The CIT(Appeals) found that the rent payable by the assessee for the present and in future would be considerably saved. The Apex Court in Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that expenditure on construction in lease hold land is allowable as revenue expenditure in case it resulted in saving of rent in future. However, the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards electrical fittings to the extent of Rs. 98,72,104/- was treated as capital expenditure by the CIT(Appeals). When the assessee constructed a new building, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the cost of construction of the building as well as the electrical fittings has to be treated as cost of constructio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
