TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on 23rd June, 1964, whereas the deed of lease was executed on 2nd May, 1967. The lease was for an initial period of 20 years with an option for renewal granted to the lessee at a higher rent, as can be seen from cl. 5 of the lease deed dated 2nd May, 1967. It is common ground that the lease of the said premises was taken for the use thereof as business premises. For the relevant assessment year the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 10,700 as expenditure incurred by way of registration fee, stamp duty and solicitors' fees in connection with the drawing up of the said deed of lease. In fact, it can be seen that out of the said amount the largest portion, viz., of Rs. 9,450, represents the amount given by a cheque to the solicitors for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession of the assessee. This provision is in pari materia with a similar provision contained in s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. In CIT v. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 877, it was held by a Division Bench of this court that expenses incurred by way of brokerage and stamp duty for acquiring office premises on lease for short period of five years are allowable deductions in computing the total income of the assessee, since the period of the lease could not be said to be such a long period that the assessee could be said to have acquired or brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been of a shorter duration provided the period of lease was more than one year. In these circumstances, we fail to see why merely because the period of lease is a little longer than in the case of CIT v. Bombay Cycle Motor Agency Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 42 (Bom), we should take a different view of the matter. Had the amount claimed included any amount claimed to have been paid by way of premium for acquiring the leasehold premises, we might have well taken a different view. As held in CIT v. Bombay Cycle Motor Agency Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 42, the period of the lease could not be regarded as decisive of the circumstance as to whether the asset or advantage secured is of an enduring nature. In the result, we answer the question referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
