TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA 440/2009 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2017 - S. MURALIDHAR PRATHIBA M. SINGH JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mr. Rahul, Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the Revenue Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates. O R D E R Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 6th June 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 1848/Del./2000 ITA No.1803/Del./2000 for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 1995-96. 2. While admitting this appeal by order dated 30th November, 2011, this Court framed following questions of law: 1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the decision dated 21st December 2016 passed by this Court in the Assessee s own case in ITA Nos. 159/2010 and 326/2010 for AY 1994- 95. 4. As far as Question No. 5 is concerned, it stands answered in favour of the Assessee by the order dated 18th May 2017 passed by this Court in ITA No. 407/2009 which is the Assessee s own case for AY 1997-98. 5. As far as Question No. 4 is concerned, the facts relevant to this question are that the Assessee had to pay to the Land and Building Department of the Government of Delhi a certain sum as a part of the contribution to the Shelter Fund, failing which, the land was to be acquired under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 ( ULCRA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n distinguished the earlier decision of the same High Court in CST v. Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 275 (Bom). The facts of the latter case were similar to the case in hand in as much as the land that was the subject matter of acquisition under the ULCRA was held as stock-in-trade. Mr. Vohra further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC). 9. The facts in Sandvik Asia (supra) show that the land which was subject matter of the ULCRA was the same land on which the factory of the Assessee was situated. Unlike the Assessee in the present case, the Assessee in that case was not in the real estate business. The question of the Assessee, in that c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purpose of the assessee's business but the only argument was, and this argument found favour with the High Court, that it represented capital expenditure and was hence not deductible Under Section 10(2)(xv). The sole question which therefore arises for determination in the appeal is - whether the sum of ₹ 2,03,255/- paid by the assessee represented capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. (...) (...) 10. When dealing with cases of this kind where the question is whether expenditure incurred by an assessee is capital or revenue expenditure. it is necessary to bear in mind what Dixon, J. said in Hallstrorm's Property Limited v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation 72 C.L.R. 634 What is an outgoing of capital and what i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
