9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion before the first respondent under section 264(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revisional authority affirmed the assessment order and rejected the revision petition as evidenced by exhibit P-2. The above orders are under challenge in this original petition. A perusal of exhibit P-1 assessment order would show that the assessee was running a hotel by name Savoy-Lodge, a theatre by name Kavita Theatre, and also doing business in arrack and brandy. It is an admitted case that the assessee was carrying on a business in purchasing, selling and distributing liquor and arrack for the past many years prior to the assessment year and also continued the same business in the year immediately following the assessment year. It is also the admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenses during the relevant assessment year. In support of the above contention learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 151. In the above case, the assessee was carrying on business in acquiring immovable property and giving it out either on leave and licence basis or on lease as residential or, in the alternative, business accommodation, with all appurtenant amenities. The assessee acquired a property with building on March 28, 1964, and after making necessary repairs, modifications, etc., for the purpose of converting the residential accommodation into a business, accommodation, let out the same on May 1, 1965. The Supreme Court held that, even if the acquis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that assessment was being made not unit-wise but assessee-wise. The assessee raised the loan for the purpose of starting a new unit and, for that purpose, it had to incur expenditure by way of interest. It was, therefore, held that the assessee was entitled to deduct the said amount out of its income and there was no legal objection for such a claim. An earlier Division Bench decision of the same High Court in Prem Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 20 (All) was followed by the learned judges in coming to the above conclusion. I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and the reliance placed on the above-mentioned decisions. In the present case also, the assessment is not unit-wise but assessee-wise. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
