2020 (2) TMI 1235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2005-06. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following questions of law as substantial questions of law, for consideration of this Court: "[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred on facts and in law, in upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 25,16,488/- on account of claim under Section 35D of the Act?" [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred on facts and in law, in upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 2,72,81,590/- on account of Rent, Rates and Taxes? [C] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to give deduction for principal part of rent received from the taxable income without there being a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncurred post commencement of business. Besides this the same could not"16.1. From the mindful reading of the above section 35D of the Act it can be construed that ROC fee is allowable only when paid for registration of the company. Printi be substantiated to have been incurred in connection with the setting up or extension of an industrial undertaking. In the light of above observation it is evident that the deduction claimed u/s 35D of the Act was not eligible and ought not to have been allowed in the very first assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. It is further observed that the case of the Hon'ble Rajasthan HC in Agro Transport Ltd. v CIT (224 ITR 90) was in context to expenditure for obtaining registration which is different from present c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een given due consideration and I am inclined to agree with the arguments of the Authorized Representative. Besides the fact that the expenses involved are recurring in nature and do not bring into existence any new fixed assets, as emphasized by the Authorized Representative, laying out of such expenses is a necessity to keep control of the assets. Payment of taxes of any kind, whether one time or recurring nature, never enhance the value of the asset being used in question nor brings into existence of any advantage of enduring nature. Clearly, land revenue, through levied on the land, a fixed asset for the appellant, in itself is not a capital expense but is only revenue expenses paidout to fulfill the statutory requirement emanating out ....