https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250120 Construction expenditure by a lessee on leasehold land was treated as revenue expenditure, because the character of the outlay depended on the lessee's lack of ownership despite the creation of an enduring structure. On that footing, the assessee could not claim the capital-expenditure-linked benefit under Section 32(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court also held that leasehold possession and construction of a superstructure do not make the lessee the owner during the lease term, so the rent from the buildings could not be assessed on an ownership basis urged by the Revenue. The assessee succeeded on the construction and ownership issues, but failed on the Section 32(1A) claim. en-us Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250120 Construction expenditure by a lessee on leasehold land was treated as revenue expenditure, because the character of the outlay depended on the lessee's lack of ownership despite the creation of an enduring structure. On that footing, the assessee could not claim the capital-expenditure-linked benefit under Section 32(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court also held that leasehold possession and construction of a superstructure do not make the lessee the owner during the lease term, so the rent from the buildings could not be assessed on an ownership basis urged by the Revenue. The assessee succeeded on the construction and ownership issues, but failed on the Section 32(1A) claim. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250120