Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 170 - AT - Income TaxRectification application - Revenue or Capital Expenditure - held that:- in the appeals filed by the Revenue, the issue raised was whether the expenditure incurred for replacement of Membrane and Cell Elements were deductible or not in computing the taxable income of the assessee-company. - the assessee has nowhere raised the question of deducting its expenditure as ‘current repairs’. - In fact, the assessee had claimed expenditure as revenue expenditure under sec.37. The question of revenue expenditure deductible under sec.37 has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills [2007 (8) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. - That is the decision which is directly relevant to the appeals considered by the Tribunal through its common order. - That decision has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT) has held that a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or arguments to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. Non-consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills [2007 (8) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is a mistake apparent in the common order passed by the Tribunal, which, in fact, really goes to the root of the Tribunal order. All these rectification petitions filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed. - the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals and cross objections filed by the assessee, all are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|