TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been rightly taken to be the revenue expenditure. Similar benefit had been extended to the assessee for the assessment year 1992-1993 and 2004-2005. This expenditure has been rightly claimed by the assessee as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. There was no reason for re-opening and initiating proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee by appreciating the facts in the right perspective. Decided against revenue. - HON BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI AND HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: For the Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate. RITU BAHRI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee had claimed an expenditure of Rs. 6.01 crores as amount paid to Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MEPB) for the line/bay charges in Anant Spinning and Vardhman Yarn, Satlapur, both units located in Madhya Pradesh. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the expenditure incurred was for the creation of capital assets, which were to be used solely for business of the assessee and as the assessee could transfer such a right in case of transfer of assets, the said expenditure was held to be a capital expenditure and was disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. In appeal, the CIT (A) upheld the reopening of the assessment and opined that the claim of capital expenditure as Revenue expenditure, which had been allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the revenue. The assessee had further informed the Tribunal that similar expenditure was allowed for the assessment year 2004-2005. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 06.01.2010 by referring to a judgment passed by this Court in CIT vs. M/s Shreyans Industries Ltd., 303 ITR 393 (P H), wherein it was held that such expenditure were to be treated as capital in nature. The aforesaid judgment passed by this Court was later on, set aside by Hon ble the Supreme Court on 23.09.2008. In this backdrop, it was argued that notice under Section 148 of the Act was illegal and it could not have been issued after the delay. During the period under consideration, the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs.6,01,69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no merit in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment by the Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s Shreyance Industries Ltd s case (supra). It was further observed that the assessee had referred to the relevant extract from the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (2004), as per which cost of extension of distribution made is to be paid by the consumer initially. However, the coast paid by the consumer shall be the property of the licensee. With these observations, appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. After going through the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the amount paid by the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
