TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 147 / 2015 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2017 - Mr. K.S.Jhaveri And Mr. Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ. For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay Mr. Narendra Bhati For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana for Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department as well as crossobjections of the assessee. 2. This court while admitting the appeal on 21.07.2017 framed following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding the expenses claimed as compensation for rock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided on 30.05.2017 wherein while considering the issues, this court in Paragraph 4 to 7, observed as under:- 4. Counsel for the department has contended that the tribunal has committed error in passing the judgment and the issue is required to be answered in favour of the Department. 5. Counsel for the respondent-assessee has relied upon the following decision of this court:- 5.1. In CIT vs. Rajasthan Mines Minerals Ltd. D.B. ITA No.107/2004 decided on 17.1.2017 wherein it has been observed as under:- It is not in dispute that the issue is raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.B. Income Tax Reference No.1/2000 (CIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department to recover the tax from the assessee. In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department for the revenue expenses (₹ 2,96,000/-) of year 1992-93 only one time. 5.2. In CIT vs. Rajasthan Mines Minerals Ltd. D.B. Income Tax Reference 1/2000 decided on 15.9.2016 wherein similar view was taken. 5.3. In Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation, Jaipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur decided on 14.12.2016 wherein it has been observed as under:- Taking into consideration the observations which are made by this court in earlier judgment of the same assessee in para no. 11 13 holding as under:- He relied upon the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tile system which is debited for the relevant year i.e. 1992-93. It is thus very clear that the survey expenses are almost identical and hence required to be allowed as revenue expenses. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the Judgment of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Supra), we are of the opinion that the expenses which gives fruitful result require to be done according to the necessity of relevant time and development with the nature of expenses. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties. 7. In view of the above, the issues are answered in favour of the assesee and against the department. It is held that the expenses incurred are revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
