9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. R. D. Jolly with Rajiv Awasthi for the Commissioner. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Vikramajit Sen J.— This reference had already been disposed of on October 15, 2001 and the order read as follows (International Airports Authority of India v. CIT [2001] 254 ITR 657) : "Coram : The hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Chief Justice and The hon'ble Mr. Justice D. K. Jain 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? Yes. ARIJIT PASAYAT C. J. (Oral)- At the instance of the assessee the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E" (for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the residents of the village by the DDA by constructing small houses for them on the alternate site and the expenditure was thus in connection with the acquisition and physical control. It was concluded that the assessee was to have an enduring benefit from the land acquired for the purpose of extension of international Airport at Delhi. The matter was carried in appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short "the CIT(A)"), who held that the Assessing Officer's action was justified. In further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the authorities below and observed that there was no evidence to show that the assessee or its predecessor had already acquired the village site. On the contrary, circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view was also expressed by the Bombay High Court in Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 218 ITR 598. The above being the position, the conclusion of the authorities below and the Tribunal are in order. We answer the question referred in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference stands disposed of." 2. Thereafter, the International Airport Authority of India moved an application for recalling the reference which had been answered ex parte by the said order dated October 15, 2001. The Division Bench (International Air-ports Authority of India v. CIT [2006] 286 ITR 323 (Delhi)), now presided over by the hon'ble Mr. Justice S. B. Sinha, Chief Justice, as his Lordship then was opined that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we do not see how fresh evidence can now be permitted to be led by the petitioner to the contrary. Even if what is contended now is taken as correct in our view, it would make no appreciable difference in answering the question whether the sum of Rs. 19.89 lakhs paid by the IAAI to the Delhi Development Authority for the removal and rehabilitation of the squatters in village Mangolpuri was in fact a capital expenditure. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on in CIT v. Auto Distributors Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 222 (Cal) in support of her contention that the said sum of Rs. 19.89 lakhs was in the nature of a revenue expenditure as it was for the commercial expediency of the business of the appellant. The facts in CIT v. Auto Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
