9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid facts and more particularly, as the Tribunal has not given any independent finding for the year under appeal and followed its earlier decision in assessee s own case which has attained finality, the appeal requires to be dismissed only on that ground. Disallowance of payment of rent and taxes - non commencement of business - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have arrived at concurrent finding of the fact that the payment of rent and taxes, paid by the assessee, is not capital expenses but is only revenue expenses paid out to fulfill the statutory requirement for the purpose of continuing the ownership of the land. - Revenue appeal dismissed. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 61 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2020 - MR. J.B. PA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee of ₹ 25,16,488/- under Section 35D of the Act. 4. The assessee claimed deduction, under Section 35D of the Act, 1961, for the first time in the year 2004-05. The issue of dis-allowance, under Section 35D of the Act, was subject matter of the appeal, for the assessment year 2003-04 and also for the assessment year 2004-05. 5. Learned advocate Ms.Mauna M. Bhatt for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal on the merits of the case has held that the assessee is not entitled to the claim deduction under Section 35D of the Act which provides for amortization of certain preliminary expenses. She relied upon the observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph No.16.1, which reads thus: 16.1. From the mindful reading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act in the first year of allowance, it could not have been cured and therefore, in view of the doctrine of consistency, the claim made by the assessee is required to be allowed for the year under consideration. 7. The Tribunal therefore followed the decision taken by in assessee s own case being ITA No.84/Ahd/2007 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 8. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the decision in ITA No.84/Ahd/2007 is not carried further and challenged before this Court, which has attained finality. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and more particularly, as the Tribunal has not given any independent finding for the year under appeal and followed its earlier decision in assessee s own case in ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue therefore being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT (A), preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the facts and materials available on record, held as under: 29. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present case relates whether the rent and taxes paid by the assessee with respect to the land where the activity has not been commenced are liable to be capitalized. From the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has been incurred such expenditure year after year and it is not getting any benefit of enduring nature out of such expenditure. We also note that the purchase of the land for the business purpose is rout ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
