TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AY') 2006-07. 2. While admitting this appeal by the order dated 22nd August, 2013, the following substantial questions of law were framed: "(i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the respondent-assessee is entitled to depreciation on Rs. 30.86 crores @10 % as building? (ii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding and setting aside the findings of the Assessing Officer that income shown by the assessee as business income should be taxed as income from house property or as income from other sources? [The contention of the respondent-assessee that the Assessing Officer had not examined and objected to depreciation as building will be also decided while examin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed an assessment order on 31st December, 2008 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 153-A of the Act assessing the total income of the Assessee at Rs. 2,85,42,450/-, as against the returned loss of Rs. 5,08,73,700/-. Against the aforementioned assessment order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)']. During the course of the proceedings before the CIT (A), the Assessee was allowed to raise a ground that the amount paid by it to ITC Limited at the time of termination of the agreement with ITC Limited, ought to be allowed, as a revenue expenditure. In the order dated 30th December, 2009, the CIT (A) came to the following conclusions: "6.3.2. Based on the above discussions, ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. The discussion on the aspect whether the payment made to ITC Limited was capital in nature starts from paragraph 24.11 of the impugned order. The ITAT came to the conclusion that since on account of the aforementioned payment to ITC Limited "the Assessee's business acquired a new lease of life" it could "only be held to be an expenditure of capital in nature". 9. The ITAT then proceeded to consider the second alternative plea that the payment had led to acquisition of intangible asset. The ITAT in the impugned order came to the conclusion that "the payment cannot be said to be for acquisition of any intangible asset". It appears that the ITAT, in view of its finding that the expenditure was capital in nature, did not consider it ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....received under Section 153-A of the Act. However, the alternative plea that this was revenue expenditure or that it was for acquisition of an intangible asset was raised by it for the first time before the CIT (A). 14. The Court finds merit in the contention that this aspect of the matter, viz., if the expenditure is not to be treated as 'capital expenditure', then it will have to be treated as 'revenue expenditure' was perhaps not addressed in the manner it should have been treated by the ITAT. On this aspect, therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to remit the matter to the ITAT for decision afresh on the treatment to be accorded to the expenditure incurred by the Assessee of the aforementioned sum of Rs. 30.86 crores and whethe....