2017 (5) TMI 1315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us two appeals. 2. These two appeals raise a common identical question of law for our consideration:- "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law in allowing the expenses incurred on dismantling, transportation and re-erection and commissioning of the manufacturing units to another location as revenue in nature? " 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the subject Assessment years from two separate orders dated 24th November, 2011 of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)). By the two orders dated 24th November, 2011 the CIT (A) had held that the expenditure incurred in the subject Assessment Years for shifting its plant from Chipri, Jay....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee therein in order to improve its business by establishing its factory at a better site which would result in greater advantage to it and in these circumstances it was held to be in the nature of Capital expenditure. As against the above in the present case the shifting of the manufacturing plant was necessary for survival of its business in view of the opposition of the local population at Chipri in Kolhapur. The impugned order relies upon decision of Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Loyal Super Fabrics [(2008)304 ITR 78] wherein on identical fact situation the expenditure of shifting the plant was allowed as Revenue expenditure. 6. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges that the i....