TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt This appeal by the assessee is for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(Appeals) in confirming the findings of the Assessing Officer holding the expenditure incurred towards Compensatory Afforestation Management and Planning Agency (CAMPA) as capital expenditure. According to the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) has not appreciated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid to Forest Department for transfer to Compensatory Afforestation Management and Planning Agency (CAMPA). The payment is made by every such user towards regeneration of forest for diversion of forest to non-forest use. Assessee was asked to explain why this expenditure should not be treated as capital expenditure. Assessee stated that the expenditure was incurred for removing certain restrictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first appellate authority. For the proposition that this is an allowable expenditure u/s. 37, the assessee relied on the following decisions: (1) Dalmia Jain Co. v. CIT 81 ITR 754 (SC) (2) CIT v. Associated Cement Co. 172 ITR 257 (SC) (3) Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. v. CIT 187 ITR 39 (SC) 7. The CIT(Appeals) noted that looking to the defacing of hills and natural beauty of mother earth, Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rying on of mining operations but not affecting or putting any restriction on sale or produce of appellant. He held then it will not be improving the trading facility or efficiency of the business. It is intrinsically related to capital asset and therefore it is capital expenditure. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. It was contended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
