Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1848 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTClaim of deduction towards incidental expenditure incurred on substitution of high interest cost of NCDs - expenditure fully and exclusively for the purpose of business leviable under section 37(1) - Held that:- This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. reported in [2013 (7) TMI 701 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has dealt with this very issue and held CDR expenses have been rightly held by both the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal as revenue in nature and the same has rightly not been held to be capital in nature. For the waiver of the loan, the payment has been made to the financial consultants. This was for the purpose of business and the same was held to be allowable under Section 37(1) - decided against revenue Expenditure on replacement of core engine of captive power plant - Held that:- Tribunal, it held that the leased property cannot be held as a property belonging to the assessee, and therefore, expenditure incurred on the property is in the nature of the revenue expenditure. While so doing, it had followed Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Madras Auto Services (P) Ltd. [1998 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] noting the fact that this was a lease asset and the Tribunal having rightly approached the issue treating the same as revenue expenditure, we see no reason to interfere in this question as well. Payment of lease amount to its holding company which is GNFC Limited, in respect of certain assets taken on lease - According to the Assessing Officer this was a financial transaction - Held that:- The Tribunal noted that GNFC Limited had shown lease rent as income under the head “Business income” and in case of the lessor, the issue had been consistently decided that the assets were owned by the GNFC, and therefore, the lease rent received by the assessee was to be assessed as business income. See Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co.Ltd [2013 (8) TMI 300 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Tribunal, therefore, has committed no error in allowing the appeal of the assessee
|