2008 (1) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....judgment of the court was delivered by DEEPAK VERMA J.- This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to in short as "the Act"), has been preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in I. T. A. No. 408/Bang/1996, dated March 28, 2002, raising the following substantial question of law: "Wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1994. The Commissioner of Income-tax on perusal of the records of the assessee, found that the claim of Rs. 5,00,000 being paid to SEBI during the assessment year as authorisation fee, had wrongly been allowed as revenue expenditure. Hence, proceeding under section 263 of the Act was initiated by the Commissioner. The assessee submitted its reply to the said notice. However, the Commissioner w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....yment of Rs. 5,00,000 was a revenue expenditure. As a necessary consequence thereof the Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax was set aside. The Revenue being aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, as mentioned hereinabove, has preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Act." 3. We have accordingly heard learned c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on to controvert the statement made by learned counsel for the assessee. 6. In the light of the statement made at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondent, we find that there is no merit or substance in this appeal. If the Revenue had been treating the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 deposited by the similarly situated assessees with SEBI as revenue expenditure, then there is no reason why a differ....