2009 (3) TMI 587

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und that it was revenue expenditure?"   2. The assessment year in question is 1994-95, the relevant accounting year being financial year ended onMarch 31, 1994. The assessee, a company, claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 48, 02,616, being payment to the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC). The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to substantiate the said claim. It was contended that the lease rent in respect of the land allotted to the assessee-company being very nominal, i.e., at Rs. 40 per year, the said payment was nothing else but advance rent and, hence, allowable as revenue expenditure. After going through the lease agreement the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim holding that the assessee had acquired a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee, learned senior advocate invited attention to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. H. M. T. Ltd. (No. 3) [1993] 203 ITR 820, to submit that the said decision had considered the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Madras Auto Service Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 740, which had since been con-firmed by the apex court in the case of CIT v. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468. That the apex court decision in the case of CIT v. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468 as well as the earlier decision of the apex court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) has been applied and followed by the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal having applied the ratio of the apex c....