TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reversing the Com-missioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order and deleting the disallowance of Rs. 48, 02,616 being lease rent paid to G. I. D. C. on the ground that it was revenue expenditure?" 2. The assessment year in question is 1994-95, the relevant accounting year being financial year ended onMarch 31, 1994. The assessee, a company, claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 48, 02,616, being payment to the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC). The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to substantiate the said claim. It was contended that the lease rent in respect of the land allotted to the assessee-company being very nominal, i.e., at Rs. 40 per year, the said payment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal had committed an error in law in treating the said payment on revenue account. 5. On behalf of the respondent assessee, learned senior advocate invited attention to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. H. M. T. Ltd. (No. 3) [1993] 203 ITR 820, to submit that the said decision had considered the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Madras Auto Service Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 740, which had since been con-firmed by the apex court in the case of CIT v. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468. That the apex court decision in the case of CIT v. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468 as well as the earlier decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o carry on the business . . " 7. The Tribunal has thus, after referring to two decisions of the Supreme Court, held that the land in question was not acquired by the assessee. That merely because the deed was registered the transaction in question would not assume a different character. The lease rent was very nominal. By obtaining the land on lease the capital structure of the assessee did not undergo any change. The assessee only acquired a facility to carry on business profitably by paying nominal lease rent. 8. In the light of the aforesaid findings of fact and the ratio of the apex court decisions, the court does not find this to be a case which warrants interference. Even the Assessing Officer has recorded that the payment was for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
