9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been no change in the capital structure of the respondent-assessee. It had paid Rs.30.86 crores to get back the possession of its own asset which had been given on license basis under the Hotel Operator Agreement. The Assessee has not acquired something that it did not already own or possess. This Court is of the view that the respondent-assessee spent Rs.30.86 crores to facilitate its busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 31-5-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA Appellant: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Advocate with Mr. Tushar Gupta and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocates. Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Jain with Ms. Akshita Goyal and Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocates. JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al expenditure of Rs.30.86 crores, when in fact, the payment so made is not only for the purpose of acquiring the building but also to acquire the land on which the hotel is located along with all the furniture and fixtures which are the part of the hotel. 4. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner is the owner of a hotel known as Hotel Sea Rock in Mumbai which was initially b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs.30.86 crores paid by the respondent towards termination of Hotel Operator Agreement out of a total sum of Rs.43.10 crores is capital or revenue expenditure? 7. In the opinion of this Court, there has been no addition of capital asset of enduring nature in the hands of the respondent-assessee. In fact, after payment of Rs.30.86 crores there has been no change in the capital structure o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2618 is not satisfied in the present case. 9. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the compensation paid had arisen out of business necessity and is revenue expenditure. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Needless to state that the finding in the present case is based on the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
