TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmitting the appeals framed the following substantial question of law: Appeal No. 91/2006 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 4,56,10,500/- towards interest and financial / bank charges was revenue expenditure though the said charges were pre-operative in nature and paid to the financial institutions against the loan obtained for installing the unit? Appeal No. 432/2008 "(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT and CIT (A) were justified in law and have acted perversely in holding the expenditure of Rs. 1,03,70,000/- towards interest & financial / bank charges as revenue exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich has not started production and was in the process of installation?" Appeal No. 565/2008 "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT and CIT(A) were justified in law and have not acted perversely in holding the expenditure towards interest and financial/ Bank charges as revenue expenditures when the said expenditure were pertaining to interet and bank charges which were pre-operative in nature and were paid to the financial institution against loan obtained for installing the unit and were enduring the nature? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT and CIT(A) were justified in law and have not acted perversely in allowing the expenditure incurred in earlier year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction of Rs. 35,92,000/- u/s 37 being payment incurred on public issue. The AO held that these expenses cannot be treated as revenue expenditures and as such disallowed the same. The AO also disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee of Rs. 12,57,460/- as the same pertained to earlier years. The AO observed that even after affording ample opportunities no evidence to prove that the expenditures were crystallized during the year was submitted by the assessee and as such the same were disallowed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Mathur contended that the amendment in explanation which was added to proviso 36(1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, reads as under: "The amount of the interest paid in respect of capital bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f this court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Modern Danim Ltd., D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.94/2006 decided on 20.09.2016 holding as under:- 5. However, in view of the decision of this Court in Secure Meters Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 611 (Raj) (supra) more particularly holding as under: "At this stage it was contended by the learned Counsel for the Revenue, that a distinction should be drawn between the convertible and non-convertible debentures, inasmuch as if the debenture is converted into shares, then it partakes the character of capital, and in that event, the expenditure, and would not be revenue expenditure, and would be capital expenditure. Learned Counsel for the assessee informs, that though it has not come on reco....