TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue. The appeals pertain to assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1977-78 to 1980-81. The question as framed for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1977-78 was as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the ground that no injustice was caused to the Revenue by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in directing that the assessee was entitled to add a sum of Rs. 36,96,516 to the cost of building and claim depreciation thereon ?" The question is not very happily worded. A similar question was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs. 36,96,516 (rupees thirty-six lakhs, ninety-six thousand and five hundred sixteen only) paid by the lessee to the lessor as additional premium before the execution of these presents (the receipt thereof the lessor doth hereby admit and acknowledge) and of the additional ground rent reserved and of the covenants on the part of the lessee contained in the Principal Indenture, Supplemental Indenture and herein, the lessor doth hereby grant his consent to the lessee using the multi-storeyed building under erection and construction on a part of the demised premises according to the plans sanctioned by New Delhi Municipal Committee vide its Resolution No. 30 dated January 20, 1967, save and except the built-up area of 51,198 square feet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been paid in respect of the commercial use of the additional area constructed as a result of the multi-storeyed building being put up by the assessee. It, therefore, pertains to the building and not to the land. The High Court has also come to a similar conclusion. The High Court has pointed out that the use of the land had already been converted to commercial use in 1962 when the assessee had paid an additional amount of Rs. 3,65,875. There was no question, therefore, of any additional commercialisation of the said plot. The amount has, however, been paid for the additional construction which has been put up by the assessee and hence forms a part of the cost of the building. For the land, the assessee has paid additional ground rent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
