TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 1219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for our consideration: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in allowing depreciation on assets leased out, when the related transactions were purely financial transactions." 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in treating the expenditure of Rs. 25.86 Crore on construction of jetty at its cement plant in Gujarat as revenue in nature, without appreciating that the work at Cement plant at Gujarat had not commenced and that the expenditure was having enduring benefit to the assessee." 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the disall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Tribunal has dismissed the Revenue's appeal before it on this issue by following the decision of this Court in National Organic Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 203 ITR 410 and its own order for the Assessment Year 1994-95 in respect of the same Respondent Assessee. In fact, its order for Assessment Year 1994-95 dealt with the claim for expenditure to construct Jetty was allowed as revenue expenditure. There is also no dispute before us that the principle laid down in National Organic Industries Ltd. (supra) would apply in the facts of the present case. (b) Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, states that the Revenue had filed an appeal from the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 1994-95 but the same was r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eed on the basis that the Revenue has accepted the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 1994-95 on identical fact situations. The impugned order merely follows the earlier orders. (c) In the above view, the question, as proposed, does not give rise to any substantial question of law, as the Revenue has accepted the issue arising herein as decided by the Tribunal for the earlier Assessment Years. Thus, not entertained. 5. Re. Question (4): (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal on the issue arising herein by following its own order in the case of Respondent Assessee for the Assessment Year 1994-95. Nothing is brought on record to indicate that the Revenue had filed any appeal from the order of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment Years 198283 and 1990-91 to 1994-95. The Revenue has not brought anything on record to indicate that it was aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Years 198283 and 1990-91 to 1994-95. (b) However, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, states that an appeal was filed by the Revenue in respect of the order passed by the Tribunal for Assessment Year 1994-95. However, it was rejected for nonremoval of office objections. However, Mr. Suresh Kumar is not in a position to state whether any attempt was made to this Court to restore the appeal for the Assessment Year 1994-95. Therefore we proceed on the basis that for the Assessment Year 1994-95 the Revenue has accepted the order of the Tribunal ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it ought to have been claimed only in Assessment Year 1992-93. (b) In the above view, question (6) does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 8. Re. Question (7): (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal on the issue raised herein holding that the expenses incurred with regard to the Nasik Glass Works was preoperative expenditure. The same was allowed for the reason for which the preoperative expenses in respect of the cement plants at Hirmi, Pipavav and Tadpatri were allowed. Therefore, by following its earlier orders for Assessment Years 1982-83 and 1990-91 and 1994-95 these expenses were held to be revenue in nature and not capital. (b) The Revenue has not b....