9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raise a common identical question of law for our consideration:- "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law in allowing the expenses incurred on dismantling, transportation and re-erection and commissioning of the manufacturing units to another location as revenue in nature? " 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the subject Assessment years from two separate orders dated 24th November, 2011 of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)). By the two orders dated 24th November, 2011 the CIT (A) had held that the expenditure incurred in the subject Assessment Years for shifting its plant from Chipri, Jaysingpur, Dist: Kolhapur to Ankleshwar in Guj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by establishing its factory at a better site which would result in greater advantage to it and in these circumstances it was held to be in the nature of Capital expenditure. As against the above in the present case the shifting of the manufacturing plant was necessary for survival of its business in view of the opposition of the local population at Chipri in Kolhapur. The impugned order relies upon decision of Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Loyal Super Fabrics [(2008)304 ITR 78] wherein on identical fact situation the expenditure of shifting the plant was allowed as Revenue expenditure. 6. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges that the impugned order of the Tribunal is not sustainable a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Thus the shifting of the plant was only for the purpose of manufacturing activity continuing to exist and carrying on its business. 9. In view of the above, the grievance to the finding of fact (concurrent) by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal is being urged by seeking to establish new facts before us, when the same was not even a suggestion made before the Authorities cannot be entertained. In fact except the above, no submission has been urged to indicate why the allowing of expenditure for shifting of the plant as revenue expenditure in the present facts is not sustainable. We find that the view taken by the Tribunal in the present facts is a possible view. Therefore no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Hence not e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
