TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the incentive given by the Government to the assessee for exploring the new market is a capital receipt, hence it cannot be treated as income either under Section 2(24) or 28 - we are unable to uphold the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted - Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. - ITA Nos.1676 And 1677/Chny/2019 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 And 2016-17) - - - Dated:- 12-9-2019 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT Respondent by: Sh. T. Banusekar, CA ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals of the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Coimbatore, dated 12.03.2019 and pertain to assessment years 2013-14 and 2016-17. We heard both the appeals together and disposing the same by this common order. 2. Let s first take assessment year 2013-14. The only issue arises for consideration is di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. In the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal in I.T.A. No.291/Mds/2017, examined this issue and remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the matter in the light of the judgment of Apex Court in Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the judgment of Madras High Court in TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. (supra). Now, the Assessing Officer has made a distinction between the cases before the Apex Court and Madras High Court on the one hand and the case of the assessee on the other hand. This distinction made by the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. representative, is not correct. We have gone through the orders of the Assessing Officer and both the cases before the Apex Court and the High Court. In the case of the assessee before the High Court and Apex Court, the vacant property was taken on lease and the cost of construction was claimed by incurring heavy expenditure. In both the cases, the assessee was paying a nominal rate of rent when compared to the market rate of lease. We may say that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the contrary. This court in the above case summarised the tests as follows (page 44) : 1. Outlay is deemed to be capital when it is made for the initiation of a business, for extension of a business, or for a substantial replacement of equipment. 2. Expenditure may be treated as properly attributable to capital when it is made not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade. . . If what is got rid of by a lump sum payment is an annual business expense chargeable against revenue, the lump sum payment should equally be regarded as a business expense, but if the lump sum payment brings in a capital asset, then that puts the business on another footing altogether. 3. Whether for the purpose of the expenditure, any capital was withdrawn, or, in other words, whether the object of incurring the expenditure was to employ what was taken in as capital of the business. Again, it is to be seen whether the expenditure incurred was part of the fixed capital of the business or part of its circulating capital. (underlining ours) Relying u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture and what does not, to attract Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act depends upon the construction of any structure or doing any work or in relation to and by way of renovation, extension or improvement to the building which is put up in a building taken on lease by him for carrying on his business and profession of the assessee, but not in a case of construction of any structure or doing any work or relation to where such building is put up/constructed for the purpose of business or the profession of the assessee in a land taken on lease by the assessee. Because the assessee did not acquire a capital asset, viz., the land in the instant case, but has put up a construction of the building only for the business advantage, with the result the entire construction cost is admissible as the revenue expenditure. 9. The apex court in L. H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 293 held that the construction of roads in the case of sugar mill is revenue expenditure. Similarly, contribution to the State Housing Board for construction of tenements for the workers was also held to be revenue expenditure by the apex court in the case of CIT v. Bom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
