TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stamp duty, registration charges, etc.- capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- This Court in case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [ 2016 (11) TMI 969 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , after referring to and relying upon the decisions of Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Kodak India Ltd, [ 2001 (10) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] and Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. CIT, [ 1997 (2) TMI 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JJ. Mr. Atul Jasani, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Respondent. ORDER P.C. : 1. The assessee has filed this Appeal raising following questions for our consideration; 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that lease premium of ₹ 2,31,62,494/amortised and claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction of foregoing capital expenditure under section 35D of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the question Nos.1 and 2 above are being considered by this Court in case of this very assessee in Income Tax Appeal No.117/16. Such questions are therefore required to be admitted. 3. Question No.3 relates to the assessee's claim of expenditur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention regarding the assessee's expenditure for increasing the share capital. The assessee argues that being an industrial undertaking, such expenditure can be allowed to be amortised in terms of section 35D of the Act. The tribunal rejected such a contention. 6. Learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that whether a banking company can be said to be an industrial undertaking is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
