2006 (1) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case, the Tribunal was right in holding that notice under section 147 to reopen the assessment cannot be sent after a notice under section 154 for rectification was issued to the assessee? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure on relocation of plant and machinery is allowable as revenue expenditure? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding the expenditure incurred on levelling of ground for storage of water as revenue expenditure? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding expenditure on R&D unit was not to be treated as incurred for Sholinganallur unit for the purpos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellate Tribunal is confirmed and does not require interference. 3. The facts relating to Question No. 3 are as under:- The assessee claims that the expenditure incurred on levelling of ground for storage of water is a revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer held that it is a capital expenditure. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that it is only a revenue expenditure. The counsel for the revenue submitted that levelling of the ground and the ultimate benefit the assessee would get by sto....