9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applications is whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation in respect of a sum of Rs. 36,96,516 which it claimed is part of the actual cost of construction put up by it for business purposes.This question arises briefly in the following circumstances : The assessee purchased an existing residential building bearing No. 18-20 at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in the year 1961. Since the assessee wanted to use the building for commercial purposes, it paid certain additional charges to the Development Officer of the Government of India and also an extra ground rent in respect of the land. This was in 1962. Later, the assessee demolished the original construction and put up a multi-storeyed structure thereon. But the floor area of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion involved an interpretation of the lease agreement as well as the permission granted by the Government of India for its commercialisation, question of law was involved and should be directed to be referred to this court. We have heard the counsel at some length but we are of opinion that the conclusion of the Tribunal is patently correct. As the Tribunal has pointed out, the Union of India was the lessor of the land which had initially been leased out for residential purposes, and when the assessee wanted to convert the use from residential to commercial purposes, it had to pay a premium or commercialisation charges. Commercial use of the land had already been permitted in 1962 and the question of commercialisation for the second time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , do not see any justification for calling upon the Tribunal to refer this question for our decision on this aspect. In ITC No. 72 of 1986, this is the only question of which reference is sought. ITC No. 72 of 1986 is, therefore, dismissed. In ITC No. 73 of 1986, the Commissioner seeks reference of another question relating to the deduction of a sum of Rs. 4,12,068. The point involved in this question is already covered by a decision of this court in Addl. CIT v. Rattan Chand Kapoor [1984] 149 ITR 1. There is, therefore, no need to call for a reference so far as this assessment year is concerned. ITC No. 73 of 1986, therefore, stands dismissed. In ITC No. 84 of 1986, three questions have been raised. So far as the first question is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
