2018 (8) TMI 861

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. As common question of facts and law arise in the present Appeal/s and as such, arise out of the impugned common judgment and order with respect to the same assessee but for different Assessment Years, both the Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Income T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r and maintenance expenditure incurred by the assessee as revenue expenditure without appreciating that such expenses resulted in enduring benefit to the assessee and therefore, the same should have been treated as capital expenditure? (b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of income of Rs. 54,00,02,000/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, welding works etc. 5. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that the said expenses are wrongly treated as revenue expenditure as expenditure was incurred for replacement of pipelines and the expenses of fabrication and welding works was while replacing the existing pipeline. However, it is required to be noted that as per the case of the assessee from the very beginning, the said expenditure....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, on facts, the learned Tribunal has committed any error in treating the said expenditure in the relevant assessment years as revenue expenditure. 7. Now, so far as the proposed question No.2.(b) in Tax Appeal No.929/2018 is concerned, learned Advocate for the Revenue Mr. Varun K. Patel has fairly conceded that the said is....