9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers 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 short "the Tribunal"), under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (in short "the Act") : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 19.89 lakhs was a capital expenditure as it gave the assessee an advantage of enduring nature ?" The dispute relates to the assessment year 1977-78. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows : The assessee, a Government Corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, circumstantial evidence like underground tunnel for use of villagers as passage could clearly go to show that the villagers were legally entitled to stay in the village site and had easementary right of passage over the runway owned by the assessee-corporation. Further, the villagers claimed title by adverse possession. Accordingly, it was held that the expenditure incurred for removal of the villagers and resettling them at another site was a capital expenditure. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 the case was a fit one for the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction vested in the court, and recalled the judgment. 3. We have heard Ms. Anjana Gosain, learned counsel for the petitioner. She endeavoured to persuade us. To remand the matter to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal since certain documents had not been filed by the International Airport Authority of India which would have the effect of altering the factual matrix. It is well-settled that in answering a reference the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ributors 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 Distributors Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 222 (Cal) are distinguishable in that the assessee there was in the business of taking properties on lease and thereafter sub-letting them for consideration. The subtenant was paid off so that a higher rental could be obtained by the assessee. It was held that this expenditure which was for improving the assessee's business prospects was a revenue expenditure. It was not a case where the capital asset of the assessee could not be put to the use for which they were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
