2012 (7) TMI 526 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Amortization of lease premium paid by the appellant - whether a capital expenditure or revenue expenditure ? - Whether lease premium paid Noida Authority is to be treated as advance rent? - held that:- the payment of premium was separate and distinct from rent, and for the purpose of securing the land, a capital asset, for use of the assessee for a long period with certain proprietary right including the right over any asset found under the land - The amount was not refundable as in this case and, therefore, the same could not be considered to be advance payment of rent - against assessee.

Rule of consistency - for the period of about 15 years, the income tax authorities had accepted the assesse’s submissions and permitted annual amortization of the initial lease consideration, as advance rent. - held that:- This Court notices that there cannot be a wide application of the rule of consistency. In Radhasaomi (1991 (11) TMI 2), the Supreme Court acknowledged that there is no res judicata, as regards assessment orders, and assessments for one year may not bind the officer for the next year.