TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , roads, etc. are for the purpose of smooth functioning of the business, though the property is a leased out property and it cannot be, at any stretch of imagination, considered to be an enduring benefit of capital expenditure. We do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law - - - - - Dated:- 2-1-2006 - Judge(s) : K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN., P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by K. Raviraja Pandian J.-These appeals have been filed by formulating the following questions of law for our consideration: Tax Cases (Appeal) No. 1378 of 2005: "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deferred revenue expenditure claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of black topping on the ground, repairs and levelling of platforms, godown, roads, etc., during the financial year 1993-94. The Assessing Officer, while finding that the expenses had been incurred by the subsidiary company M/s. Sanco Warehousing Ltd. and were transferred to the assessee's account by way of debit note, disallowed the expenditure on account of not having been incurred in the relevant previous year, as it was not claimed in the original return. With respect to asphalting work of black topping, the Assessing Officer was of the view that it was capital expenditure, as it would give enduring benefit to the container freight station. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the findings arrived at by the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y M/s. Sanco Warehousing Ltd. and it was transferred to the account of the assessee-company by debit note dated March 31,1995. In respect of the other question of law regarding enduring benefit, he has reiterated what was stated before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. We have heard learned senior Central Government standing counsel and perused the materials on record. We are of the view that the findings arrived at by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the expenditure incurred in the previous year is not supported by necessary evidence and in any case, it did not make any vital difference in the claim of the assessee, do not call for any interference. Further, the reasoning of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
