TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on repair and maintenance of the building and construction of boundary wall thereof was held to be capital expenditure - Held that:- The amount spent on repair and maintenance of the building and construction of boundary wall thereof was held to be capital expenditure. It was noticed that the amount had been spent for the purchase of ACC sheets, dryer and construction of boundary wall. Learned counsel for the assessee was unable to substantiate that the said expenditure would qualify as revenue expenditure in the facts and circumstances of the present case - ITA No. 986 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Mukhi, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Yogesh Putney, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified on facts and in law in concurring with the findings of the AO that the amount spent on repair and maintenance of the building and construction of boundary wall thereof was capital expenditure instead of revenue as claimed by the appellant? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee Cooperative society filed its return declaring income of ₹ 43,868/- under the head house property. In computation of income, net profit from business was shown by the assessee at ₹ 1,28,57,256/- against which business loss carried forward from earlier years was set off to the extent of the income and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had not made any claim either in the original return or in the revised return; secondly, for the assessment year 2000-01, it was held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the light of the above facts, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is accordingly dismissed. In view of the above finding, question No.(a) does not arise. 5. As regards question No.(b), it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the assessee that the same is covered against the assessee by the decision dated 24.10.2013 rendered by this Court in ITA No.235 of 2009, (The Shahabad Cooperat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
