TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilar work was carried out by the assessee. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. TVS Lean Logistics Ltd., (2007 (6) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT, MADRAS ) has held that Explanation-1 will not apply where there is no building. In the present case, the facts as emanating from records show that the assessee has not taken any building on lease. Further, the assessee has stated that with the contribution for construction of sheds, the assessee shall be entitled for lower monthly lease rents. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. The payment of lease rentals is a revenue expenditure. Thus, the contribution made by assessee initially would save revenue expenditure in later years. Thus, in the light of the judgments discussed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... First Appellate Authority, the assessee has come in second appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri V.S.Jayakumar, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that four storage depots were allotted to the assessee on lease-hold basis for the period of twenty nine years in Integrated Storage cum Marketing Yard Complex by Tamil Nadu Foodgrains Marketing Yard Limited., a special purpose vehicle formed by Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India. The assessee contributed for the construction of sheds. This did not result in creation of any asset or benefit of enduring nature to the assessee. However, these contributions for integrated storage facilities helped the assessee to secure lower monthly lease rents. Apart from providing stor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions: i. L.H.Sugar Factory Oil Mills (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT reported as 125 ITR 293 (SC); ii. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT reported as 198 ITR 202 (Calcutta); and iii. Decision of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABT Ltd., Vs. ACIT reported as 21 ITR (T) 634; 5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides. We have also perused the orders of the authorities below, as well as, the decisions/judgments on which both the sides have placed reliance. The only issue in appeal is: Whether the expenditure of ₹ 53,88,776/- incurred by assessee on construction of sheds on lease-hold land is revenue or capital in nature? The assessee has been allotted four storage depots by Tamil Nad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure shall be treated as capital expenditure. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. TVS Lean Logistics Ltd., (supra) has explained that the expression building has to be interpreted in the manner as it is used in the section. The Hon'ble court thus held: It is not in dispute that the assessee had put up the impugned construction of building only on leasehold land and no building was taken on lease by the assessee. Therefore, the fiction created by Explanation 1 that the building put up by him in the leasehold land or structure or work shall be construed as if the same is owned by the assessee, is not applicable to the case of the assessee and Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act is not attracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of interpretation other than the literal rule and even if the literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, it has to be followed. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative event and even assuming there is a defect or any omission in the words used in the legislation, the court cannot correct or make up the deficiency, especially when a literal reading thereof produces an intelligible result and any departure from the literal rule would really be amending the law in the garb of interpretation, which is not permissible and which would be destructive of judicial discipline, vide Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank [2007] 135 Comp Cas 163 (SC) ; [2007] 2 SCC 230. What constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion or improvement or any similar work was carried out by the assessee. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. TVS Lean Logistics Ltd., (supra) has held that Explanation-1 will not apply where there is no building. In the present case, the facts as emanating from records show that the assessee has not taken any building on lease. Further, the assessee has stated that with the contribution for construction of sheds, the assessee shall be entitled for lower monthly lease rents. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. The payment of lease rentals is a revenue expenditure. Thus, the contribution made by assessee initially would save revenue expenditure in later years. Thus, in the light of the judgments discusse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
