High Court rules against Revenue on deemed dividend & capital expenditure, parties bear own costs.

The High Court ruled against the Revenue, holding that the addition of Rs. 5,75,154 as deemed dividend for the assessment year 1971-72 was unsustainable based on settled law. The Court also determined that a payment of Rs. 11,00,000 for a sub-lease represented capital expenditure, contrary to the assessee's position. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, with Justice B. L. Jain concurring with Justice S. C. Sen's judgment on the case's issues.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deemed dividend.
2. Determination of whether a payment for sub-lease represents capital expenditure.

Interpretation of section 2(22)(e) - Deemed Dividend:
The Tribunal considered the addition of Rs. 5,75,154 as deemed dividend for the assessment year 1971-72. The High Court referred to the judgments in the cases of Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 1 and ITO v. Chandmull Batia [1978] 115 ITR 388 to establish the settled law on this matter. The Court answered the first question in the affirmative and against the Revenue, indicating that the addition as deemed dividend was unsustainable.

Payment for Sub-lease - Capital Expenditure:
Regarding the payment of Rs. 11,00,000 in four instalments for the sub-lease, the Tribunal determined it as a capital expenditure based on the deed of sub-lease dated November 14, 1969. The Court, considering the Tribunal's factual findings, concluded that the payment indeed represented a capital expenditure. Therefore, the second question was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.

Costs:
It was decided that each party would bear its own costs in this matter.

Separate Judgment:
Justice B. L. Jain concurred with the judgment delivered by Justice S. C. Sen on the issues raised in this case.

---