TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal ruling: Lease money not revenue expenditure, but capital. CIT(A) order set aside.</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Versus Tata Honeywell Ltd.</h3> Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Versus Tata Honeywell Ltd. - ITD 093, 507, TTJ 094, 178, Issues:1. Addition of Rs. 18,85,378 for under-valuation of closing stock.2. Disallowance of Rs. 27,37,500 as lease money for machinery.Analysis:1. Under-valuation of Closing Stock:The first issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 18,85,378 by the Assessing Officer due to under-valuation of closing stock in relation to MODVAT credit. Both parties agreed that this matter aligns with the judgment in CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. Following this precedent, the issue was decided in favor of the assessee, upholding the order of the CIT(A) on this matter.2. Disallowance of Lease Money:The second issue revolves around the disallowance of Rs. 27,37,500 as lease money for machinery paid by the assessee to Blue Star Ltd. The assessee sought to claim the entire payment as revenue expenditure, arguing that no capital asset was acquired, and relied on various judgments to support this stance. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the claim in full. However, the revenue appealed to the Tribunal, contending that the expenditure was capital in nature. The Tribunal analyzed the terms of the original lease deed and the subsequent tripartite agreement. It concluded that the lump sum payment made by the assessee was essentially for acquiring leasehold rights in the machinery for an extended period, constituting capital expenditure. Despite the Assessing Officer allowing a partial deduction, the Tribunal held that the full amount could not be claimed as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer's decision was reinstated regarding this issue.In conclusion, the appeal of the revenue was partly allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the revenue on the disallowance of the lease money as revenue expenditure.
TaxTMI 