9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same asset, M/s.Ford India Private Limited claimed depreciation and the assessee is claiming exemption under Section 37 of the Act, cannot be a relevant factor. As rightly submitted by Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that this was never the case of the Revenue before the authorities or before the Tribunal. Thus, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal rightly examined the nature of transaction and held that expenditure to be in the Revenue field. - Decided against revenue. - T.C.A.Nos.620 & 621 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 16-10-2020 - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Appellant : Mr.S.Rajesh Standing counsel [in both T.C.As] For the Respondent : Ms.N.V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion was whether this expenditure incurred by the assessee was in the capital field or a Revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment vide order dated 04.03.2014 under Section 143(3) of the Act, held that the amount paid by the assessee to M/s.Ford India Private Limited was to improve their asset and such amount spent is non-refundable and even if the assessee company receive 'services' in future, it would be separately governed by a 'separate shared services agreement' and hence, the amount paid to M/s.Ford India Private Limited was held to be not 'wholly and exclusively' for the assessee's business and it was spent towards the acquisition of a capital asset. 4. The assessee mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal calls for interference. In support of such contention, the learned Standing counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mother Hospital Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2017 79 taxmann.com 375 (SC). 6. Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee, referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Empire Jute Co., Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [(1980) (124 ITR 1)] , submitted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was to ensure that there is an uninterrupted power supply and it is undoubtedly a business expenditure. To the same effe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he test of enduring advantage, is not a certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to the particular facts and circumstances of a given case. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-I Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd., (cited supra), also is on the same lines. The decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anand Gum Industries (cited supra) and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Birla Jute Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,(cited supra) would also factually assisted the case of the assessee. 9. So far as the decision relied on by the learned Standing counsel for the appellant/Revenue in the case of Moth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
