2008 (1) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellate authority, payment was made only once. Hence, the expenditure incurred by the assessee rendered the assessee with a benefit of enduring nature and, therefore, treated it as capital expenditure. – Tribunal held that that the amount is revenue in nature and allowed the deduction – HC held that, ff the Revenue had been treating the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 deposited by the similarly situated assessees with SEBI as revenue expenditure, then there is no reason why a different treatment should be meted out to the present assessee – allowed as revenue expenditure.
DEEPAK VERMA and K. L. MANJUNATH JJ. M. V. Seshachala for the appellants. S. Parthasarathi for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by DEEPAK .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the said notice. However, the Commissioner was pleased to hold that the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 deposited by the assessee as authorisation fee to SEBI was capital expenditure. This payment was made in order to meet the requirements of the Securities of Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. According to the appellate authority, payment was made only once. Hence, the expenditure incurred by the assessee rendered the assessee with a benefit of enduring nature and, therefore, treated it as capital expenditure. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the assessee feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal on appreciation of facts and law, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal. If the Revenue had been treating the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 deposited by the similarly situated assessees with SEBI as revenue expenditure, then there is no reason why a different treatment should be meted out to the present assessee. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in this appeal. 7. However, it may be clarified that in case, statement made by learned counsel for the respondent is found to be incorrect, then the appellant would be at liberty to move an appropriate application either for recalling the present order or for review of the order. 8. The appeal stands dismissed, without specifically answering the question of law as framed by the Revenue in this appeal.
Cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X