9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished by the appellant, the appeal at the instance of an assessee or the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Act is not maintainable. Nature of expenditure - payment of compensation paid by the appellant - Revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- No substantial question of law would arise in this regard to Question No. 2 also because the expenditure paid by the Assessee Company to the other party for withdrawing from the Contract for purchase of Immovable Property i.e. land in question, on which the Appellant Assessee wanted to establish the infrastructural facilities for the business has been rightly held to be a Capital Expenditure and the same cannot be said to be a Revenue Expenditure incurred in the ordinary course of busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in I.T.A. No. 536/2015 c/w. I.T.A. No. 537/2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore and Another Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd.,) rendered on 25-06-2018, wherein it is held that in these type of cases, unless an ex-facie perversity in the findings of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is established by the appellant, the appeal at the instance of an assessee or the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Act is not maintainable. The relevant portion of the said judgment dated 25/06/2018 is quoted below for ready reference:- Conclusion: 55. A substantial quantum of international trade and transactions depends upon the fair and quick judicial dispensation in such cases. Had it been a case of substantial question of inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mparables to arrive at an Arm s Length Price in the case of the assessees with which the assessees may not be satisfied and have filed such appeals before this Court. Therefore we clarify that mere dissatisfaction with the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not at all a sufficient reason to invoke Section 260-A of the Act before this Court. 58. The appeals filed by the Revenue are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. 5. As far as Question No. 2 is concerned, the relevant findings of the learned Tribunal in its Order dated 30/08/2010 are quoted below for ready reference:- 103. We considered the matter in detail. It is true that the assessee has not acquired any tangible asset or an enduring benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed the payment of Rs. 1.05 crores and denied the deduction to the assessee company. This issue is decided against the assessee. 6. We find that no substantial question of law would arise in this regard to Question No. 2 also because the expenditure of Rs. 1.05 Crores paid by the Assessee Company to the other party for withdrawing from the Contract for purchase of Immovable Property i.e. land in question, on which the Appellant Assessee wanted to establish the infrastructural facilities for the business has been rightly held to be a Capital Expenditure and the same cannot be said to be a Revenue Expenditure incurred in the ordinary course of business. 7. The findings of facts recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on cogent m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
