TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of the equipments – held that - It is no doubt true that the assessee has paid the deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 which has to be adjusted towards the rentals. When such being the case, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in reversing the findings of the Assessing Officer, but the Tribunal without considering the legal aspect and without any basis has wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 29, 2001, raising the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment to the Bangalore Cancer Research Foundation of Rs. 3 lakhs in the year of account was for purchase of the equipment and not for the user of the same ?" 2. The facts of this case are as hereunder: 3. The appellant-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer. Against the order of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed. 4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we notice the following undisputed facts. 5. The equipments are not owned by the assessee. It is hired by the assessee. When the assessee is only a lessee and has paid lease charges, such expenses cannot be treated as capital in nature. It is no doubt true that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
