2016 (4) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has urged the following questions of law for our consideration: - "(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in allowing as revenue expenditure fees paid to Clubs, whereas the said expenditure cannot said to be wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the deductibility of interest payments ignoring the fact that these payments were capitalized in the books of the company? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in deciding that accessories to a windmill also qualify for 100% depreciation whereas most ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt-Revenue's Appeal. The impugned order of the Tribunal relied upon its orders passed for A.Ys. 1993-94 and 1994-95 upholding the claim for deduction of interest paid for acquisition of capital asset under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. (d) Mr. Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to show any distinguishing features in the present case which would warrant taking a view different from one taken by the Tribunal in its orders for the A.Ys.1993-94 and 1994-95. Moreover we find that the order of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 1994-95 inter alia rely on the decision of this Court in Calico Dyeing and Printing Works V/s. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 265 and of the Apex Court in India Cement V/s. CIT 60 ITR 52. In the above cases it is held that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n a decision of its Coordinate Bench in MET Developers and Builders (Income Tax Appeal No.1705/Pn/2011) wherein on identical facts the claim for depreciation was allowed. Mr. Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to point out and/or state whether any appeal from the decision of the Tribunal in MET Developers (supra) has been filed to this Court. Moreover no reason is forthcoming for not filing any appeal. Therefore this would conclude the issue in favour of the RespondentAssessee. (c) Besides we find that all the items i.e.(1) Temporary approach Road (2) Central Control Room/Store (3) 33 KV Transformer Yard (4) 33 KV Grrid Line (5) Metering Yard (6) Vacuum Circuit Breakers (7) Addl. Meeting Yard and (8) Earth Pit, were found a....