TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No. - 183 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2012 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal,JJ. For the Petitioner : A. N. Mahajan For the Respondent : S. D. Singh ORDER 1. We have heard Shambhu Chopra for the appellant. Sri S.D. Singh appears for the respondent-revenue. 2. This Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi dated 30.12.2009, relevant for the Assessment Year 1990-91, by which the Tribunal confirmed the appellate order. 3. This appeal was admitted on the following question of law:- "(1) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT was legally correct in holding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was to get the existing power line replaced so as to enable the assessee to receive higher K. V. A. electric power for its cold storage. The already existing line was the appliance through which the assessee received power for its cold storage. The change in the appliance for receiving power was required by the assessee so that its plant may work more efficiently. It cannot be said that by changing the line the assessee procured some enduring asset. In our opinion, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills, [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC), for determining when a particular expenditure partakes the nature of revenue expenditure, fully applied to the facts of the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of enduring nature, belonging to the assessee, came into existence. We are, therefore, of opinion that the expenditure in question could not be described as capital expenditure." 5. The Tribunal also found that the question is covered by decisions of Bombay, Delhi and Gujarat High Courts in CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd [122 ITR 995 (Bom.); Hindustan Times Ltd Vs. CIT [122 ITR 977 (Del.)] and in CIT Vs. Karam Chand Prem Chand Pvt Ltd [209 ITR 281 (Guj.]. 6. The Tribunal held that the amount paid to the State Electricity Board, for laying additional lines, and for shifting HT lines, was of revenue nature. 7. The question is thus decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 8. The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
