AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvocate ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This bunch of eight appeals filed by the Department as well as different assessees are directed against different orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore-3, Coimbatore, for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21. 2. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. Both the parties have agreed that the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 3326/Chny/2019 for AY 2017-18 can be heard as lead case as the facts and circumstances therein covers all the appeals. Therefore, we proceed to take-up the said appeal as lead case. I.T.A. No. 3326/Chny/2019 for AY 2017-18 4. Ground No. 1 consisting of sub-grounds (i) & (ii) raised by the Revenue and the same are reproduced hereunder: i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that incentive of Rs..27,28,00,467/- given by the Govt to the assessee for exploring new market is a capital....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue in nature. The ld. DR drew our attention to the assessment order and submits that the assessee claimed income arising from the sale of scrips under Market Linked Focus Product Scheme hereafter as [MLFPS in short] as exempt. He submits that MLFPS is an incentive scheme under the Ministry of Commerce intended to promote export trade in certain products and markets. The main objective of this scheme is to incentivize export of such products, which have high employment intensity in rural and semi urban areas so as to offset territorial inefficiencies, infrastructure and other associated costs involved in marketing of these products in the international market. He submits that the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer the MLFPS does not appear in any of the charging sections and it is not an income as per sections 28 and 56 of the Act, along with the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Eastern Seafoods Exports (P) on 20.10.1994 and the orders of ITAT in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012- 13. The Assessing Officer, considering the said explanation, held that the income from sale of MLFPS licences are similar to DEPB, duty dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l is to be treated the incentive before establishing the unit. He referred to Merchandise Exports from India Scheme [MEIS], which was introduced in the Foreign Trade Policy [FTP] for the period 2015-20. The said MEIS, he submits, was launched as an incentive scheme for the export of goods and replaced various export incentive schemes, which gave different types of duty credit scrips including MLFPS. He vehemently argued MEIS intends to incentives exports of goods manufactured in India or produced in India and placed on record the details of MLFPS, submits the eligibility being exporters of selected products to select countries w.e.f. 01.05.2013 and drew our attention to various products of Market Linked Focus Product Scheme [MLFPS] for export made. 11. The ld. CIT- DR submits the scenario of MLFPS is different prior to AY 2017-18 and now the claim is to be considered in terms of the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act and argued that the assistance in the form of "subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty draw back or waiver or concession or reimbursement", by whatever name called, is an income and is to be treated as income with effect from 01.04.2016. MLFPS is al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng so, dismissed the Writ Petition. He summarised his arguments by saying that the claim of the assessee is hit by insertion of sub-clause (xviii) of section 2(24) of the Act and therefore, the incentive given under MFLPS is an income chargeable to tax, prayed to restore the order of the Assessing Officer. 13. The ld. AR Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay decided only the issue of constitutional validity of insertion of sub-clause (xviii) to section 2(24) of the Act. The Hon'ble Court did not lay down any principle about the applicability of the amendment by inserting sub-clause (xviii) of section 2(24) of the Act. He referred to the order of the Tribunal in the case of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), as relied on by the ld. DR and submits that the Division Bench of ITAT cannot override another Division Bench as it can only distinguish to hold whether it is applicable or not. He referred to the findings of the Tribunal in para 34 and argued that the Coordinate Bench did not distinguish the facts and circumstances of the case to hold why it is not considered. The finding of the Coordinate Bench in stating the facts therein are diff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g given in recognition of service, efforts or achievement. He submits the rewards were given in the present case in order to overcome infrastructural inefficiencies and associated costs involved and to provide exporters a level playing field. He referred to all the items provided in sub-clause (xviii) of section 2(24) of the Act and drew our attention to page 5 and submits that the 'grant' is a sum of money given by the Government or public body for a particular purpose. Further, he referred to page 6 of the paper book and submits the definition of 'subsidy' is a sum of money granted from public funds to help an industry or business to keep the price of a commodity or service low. He referred to page 8 of the paper book and submits that the definition of 'assistance' is that the provision of money, resources, or information to help someone and drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd v Shankar Prasad AIR 1999 SC 2423. He referred to page 36 of the paper book and argued when particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to things of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mischief under section is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. The scope of said section cannot be enlarged to include the reward by interpreting the words subsidy, grant, cash incentive, duty drawback, waiver, concession and reimbursement and prayed to dismiss the ground No. 1(i) & (ii) of appeal raised by the Revenue. 16. in reply, the ld. DR vehemently argued that the export receipt is a revenue in nature, chargeable to tax. He vehemently opposed the submissions of the ld. AR in stating that it is a reward, but there is no reward in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The ld. CIT-DR, Shri S. Palanikumar vehemently contended that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Serum Institute of India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) clearly held the subsidy and concession are fall under the definition of income as provided in the amendment to section 2(24) by insertion of sub-clause (xviii) by Finance Act, 2015. Therefore, we have to consider as to whether in the present case, the sale of MFLPS scrips granted by the Government of India under Foreign Trade Policy-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has time and again expanded. The submissions of petitioner fall short of appreciating the overarching legislative intent to foster a comprehensive and equitable taxation regime. The amendment to Section 2(24) by insertion of the impugned sub-clause that includes various subsidies and concessions only indicates the well established jurisprudential path ensuring that the income tax laws remain attuned to the economic realities and continue to serve as a vital cog in the nation's fiscal machinery. As submitted by ASG, it is the duty of the legislature to ensure that taxation policy reflects a balance between incentivizing economic activity and ensuring the equitable distribution of fiscal resources. 44 In our view, there is no merit in the petition. Petition dismissed. 18. On careful reading of para 10 above, we note that the assessee/ petitioner therein challenged the constitutional validity of impugned subclause (xviii) to section 2(24) of the Act, whereby, contending all incentives given in whichever form by the Government and with whatever purpose of objective are to be treated as income, irrespective of the fact as to whether or not the same is in the nature of capital a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... capital receipt, cannot be treated as income either under section 2(24) or section 28 of the Act. Further, the same finding was followed in AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide order dated 10.02.2023 in assessee's own case, which is at page 131 of the paper book. Thus, it is clear the Coordinate Benches held the incentive given by Government for exploring new market area, is a capital receipt, cannot be charged to tax either under section 2(24) or 28 of the Act. 20. Further, the ld. DR placed reliance in the case of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. V. ACIT (supra) and drew our attention to para 34 of the said order and argued that the ITAT Chennai Bench observed that the facts are not appraised in right perspective of law in the case of Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (assessee before us), and held that the said judgement of the Chennai Bench is not considered. Further, it was also held that the facts in the case of PCIT v. Nitin Spinners Ltd. (supra) are different from the facts in the case of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. V. ACIT (supra) and thereby, not considered. 21. We find that the Coordinate Bench in the case of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. V. ACIT (supra) held the duty credit scri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hyundai Motor India Ltd. V. ACIT (supra). We find the order passed by Hyundai Motor India Ltd. V. ACIT (supra) was on 01.09.2021 and in assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 was on 10.02.2023, the Coordinate Bench followed the orders for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17, held sale of scrips under MLFPS is capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. 24. Further, a contention was raised by the ld. AR that a reference to the applicability of sub-clause (xviii) to section 2(24) of the Act, wherein, he argued that there was no corresponding amendment to section 28 of the Act. We note that the Assessing Officer discussed the provision under section 28 of the Act in his order at page 3 of the assessment order and held sub-clause (iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) covers the income, nothing, but incentive to promote export trade - similar to the scheme of MLFPS. We note that under Chapter IV of the Income Tax Act "Computation of Income" is provided under main heads i.e., salary, income from house property and profits and gains of profession. If we refer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on sale of a license granted under the Impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit Scrips shall be granted as rewards under MEIS and SEIS. The Duty Credit Scrips and goods imported/domestically procured against them shall be freely transferable. The Duty Credit Scrips can be used for: (i) Payment of Customs Duties for import of inputs or goods, except items listed in Appendix 3A. (ii) Payment of excise duties on domestic procurement of inputs or goods, including capital goods as per DoR notification. (iii) Payment of service tax on procurement of services as per DoR notification. (iv) Payment of Customs Duty and fee as per paragraphci 3.18 of this Policy. Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) 3.03 Objective Objective of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) is to offset infrastructural inefficiencies and associated costs involved in export of goods/products, which are produced/manufactured in India, especially those having high export intensity, employment potential and thereby enhancing India's export competitiveness. 3.04 Entitlement under MEIS Exports of notified goods/products with ITC(HS) code, to notified markets as listed in Appendix 3B, shall be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... determination of the actual cost of the asset in accordance with the provisions of Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43; or (b) the subsidy or grant by the Central Government for the purpose of the corpus of a trust or institution established by the Central Government or a State Government, as the case may be.] 28. On plain reading of the above provisions, we note that the definition of income is provided under many sub-clauses to sub-section (24) of section 2 of the act,. The definition of income under sub-clause (xviii) includes assistance in the form of "subsidy" or "grant" or "cash incentives" or "duty drawback" or "waiver" or "concession" or "reimbursement" (by whatever name called) from Central Government or state Government or any authority or body or agency in cash or kind. In the present case, we find no "subsidy" or "grant" or "cash incentives" or "duty drawback" or "waiver" or "concession" or "reimbursement". The assessee got only reward for MEIS scheme under Foreign Trade Policy-2015 for a level playing field. 29. In this regard, the ld. AR placed on record meaning of terms in reference to section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act with examples. On perusal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement with reference to definition given above. In this regard, Shri Banusekar, ld. AR filed written note on principle of ejusdem generis and explained that where general words follow specific words then such general words take the colour from the specific words that precede and drew our attention the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankar Prasad AIR 1999 SC 2423, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2002] 4 SCC 219 and Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [2002] 4 SCC 297. The relevant part of 3 above said judgements are reproduced herein below: In Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankar Prasad AIR 1999 SC 2423 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that the rule of ejusdem generis provides that "When particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified". Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2002] 4 SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e". By applying the same finding, let us see the difference between the words "reward" and "assistance". As per the note given by the ld. AR, the term "reward" is defined as a "thing given in recognition of service, efforts or achievement", whereas, the term "assistance" is defined as the provision of money, resources or information to help someone, thus, we find a "reward" is granted in a recognition of services, an assistance is given to someone as a help, but not in recognition of a service rendered. Therefore, in our opinion, there is a clear difference between the words "reward" and "assistance", thus, we hold the "reward" as in the Foreign Trade Policy - 2015 and the "assistance" as found in the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act are different from each other, the "reward" does not fall within the definition of sub-clause (xviii) of sub-section (24) of section 2 of the Act. 32. Further, we find benefit granted under the Foreign Trade Policy - 2015 by way of MEIS scrips do not fall within the meaning of any of the terms cited from Government website and, therefore, does not fall within the meaning of "subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnment grant is so deducted from the actual cost of the asset or shall be reduced from the written down value of block of assets to which the asset or assets belonged to. 8. The Government grant that is receivable as compensation for expenses or losses incurred in a previous financial year or for the purpose of giving immediate financial support to the person with no further related costs, shall be recognised as income of the period in which it is receivable. 9. The Government grants other than covered by paragraph 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall be recognised as income over the periods necessary to match them with the related costs which they are intended to compensate. 10. The Government grants in the form of non-monetary assets, given at a concessional rate, shall be accounted for on the basis of their acquisition cost. 34. On perusal of the above, we note that the ICDS-VII only refers to a Government grant as seen above. We find the duty credit scrips under MEIS not included within its ambit, therefore, since MEIS is a reward not governed by ICDS-VII. The point 9 above clearly states that the Government grant other than covered by paragraph 5, 6, 7 & 8 shall b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs. (supra), which held that the purpose test is determination of whether a benefit under a Government policy is income or otherwise, the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below for better understanding: 5. That matter concerns the 1980 Scheme. The dispute pertains to Assessment Year 1986-87. In this matter both the above questions arises for determination. The incentives conferred under that Scheme were twofold. First, in the nature of a higher free sale sugar quota and second, in allowing the manufacturer to collect excise duty on the sale price of the free sale sugar in excess of the normal quota, but pay to the Government only the excise duty payable on the price of levy sugar. In that connection, we quote clause 7 of the Scheme, which reads as under: "The beneficiaries of the incentive scheme shall ensure that the surplus funds generated through sale of the incentive sugar are utilized for the repayment of term loans, if any, outstanding from the Central Financial institutions. The sugar factories should submit utilization certificates annually from Chartered/Cost Accountant, holding certificate of practice. Utilisation certificate in respect of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The said Schemes were not meant for a running unit. The second benefit, according to the learned counsel, lay in the rebate of excise duty under which the assessee was required to pay excise duty on the manufacture of additional quota of free sale sugar. According to the learned counsel, in judging the character of the incentive, the "purpose test" is applicable. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the character of the receipt in the hands of the assessee had to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy was given and that the point of time at which it is paid or its source or its form was irrelevant. In this connection, learned counsel also places reliance on the same judgment of this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (supra). 9. The key question which arises for determination is: what is the character of the incentive subsidy under the said Schemes? 10. At the outset, it may be stated that during the relevant year in question, on account of economic factors, namely, high cost, the new sugar factories could not come up as it was not economically viable. Due to high cost, the financial institutions did not c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be noted that in the case of Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. we are concerned with Notification dated 15.11.1980. It indicates the above factors of the Scheme. The important point to be noted is that Government of India, financial institutions as well as the sugar industries are parties to the scheme in the sense that but for the scheme the financial institutions would not have given term loans to set up new units/expansion of the existing units. 13. The main controversy arises in these cases because of the reason that the incentives were given through the mechanism of price differential and the duty differential. According to the Department, price and costs are essential items that are basic to the profit making process and that any price related mechanism would normally be presumed to be revenue in nature. In other words, according to the Department, since incentives were given through price and duty differentials, the character of the impugned incentive in this case was revenue and not capital in nature. On the other hand, according to the assessee, what was relevant to decide the character of the incentive is the purpose test and not the mechanism of payment. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of time at which the subsidy is paid is not relevant. The source is immaterial. The form of subsidy is immaterial. The main eligibility condition in the scheme with which we are concerned in this case is that the incentive must be utilized for repayment of loans taken by the assessee to set up new units or for substantial expansion of existing units. On this aspect there is no dispute. If the object of the subsidy scheme was to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably then the receipt is on revenue account. On the other hand, if the object of the assistance under the subsidy scheme was to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was on capital account. Therefore, it is the object for which the subsidy/assistance is given which determines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form of the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant." 37. On careful reading of the above, we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to facts of the Sahney Steels & Press Works (supra) observed if the object of the subsidy scheme was to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably then ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty, military service, or the payment of taxes.' 'Subsidy: A grant of money made by government in aid of the promoters of any enterprise, work, or improvement in which the government desires to participate, or which is considered a proper subject for government aid, because such purpose is likely to be of benefit to the public' 17. From the above definitions, it is apparently clear that word exemption is used in the conditions when assessee is given freedom from following any rules or regulations whereas subsidy is something which is given to the assessee to meet the cost of its project. In the present case, assessee is exempted from making payment of excise duty to the extent of 36% of the total excise duty collected. It is not subsidy given to meet cost of project. In our view, the exemption from excise duty do not fall in the definition of income as envisaged u/s 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. Meaning thereby, the amount of Rs. 1,85,49,324/- is not an income but a capital receipt not taxable under the provisions of the Act. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Commissioner of Custom Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co.", (Supra) by considering the decision of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld the word "exemption" from excise duty do not fall in the definition of income as envisaged under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, thereby, held a sum claimed as exempt is not an income, but a capital receipt not taxable under the provisions of the Act. In order to come to such conclusion, the Amritsar Bench of ITAT placed reliance in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. AIR [2018] Supreme Court 3606, which laid down principle applicable for interpretation of taxing statute, that in interpreting taxing statute equitable consideration are entirely out of place, a taxing statute cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted what is clearly expressed, it cannot employ anything which is not expressed, it cannot import provision to statute so as to supply any deficiency, that before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act and in the absence of inclusion of words under the said clause, the scope of section cannot be enlarged to include exemption by interpreting with its subsidy. We find the facts of the present case are identical to the facts before ITAT Am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs of the lower authorities are set aside and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted." 42. On perusal of the above, we note that the question arose for consideration is when the assessee was given incentive for exploring the new markets across the globe, whether such incentive be a capital receipt or revenue receipt. The Tribunal, considering decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.(supra) held the incentive given by the Government of India for exploring new market across the globe, is not for running the business but for the expanding the market area, is a capital receipt and cannot be treated as income either under section 2(24) or 28 of the Act. As discussed above, the same finding has been followed by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 & 15-16, thereby, we summarise our finding in answering the grounds of appeal with reference to the arguments of the ld. DR and ld. AR, that we hold that the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Serum Institute of India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) is not applicable to the facts on hand as Hon'ble High Court was pleased to decide the question the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee's own case, held the same as revenue expenditure and allowed the claim of the assessee. The latest consolidated order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16 are at page 131 of the paper book. 46. The ld. DR did not agree with the finding of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the said assessment year and challenged vehemently the order of the ld. CIT(A) following the same. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. K.V. Nellaiappan [2022] 135 taxmann.com 223 (Madras). 47. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. 293 ITR 432 (Mad). We note that the distinction between both the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras are that in the case of CIT v. K.V. Nellaiappan (supra), the assessee therein taken a building on lease, but, not the land and in the case of CIT v. TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. (supra), the assessee therein taken land on lease and constructed building thereon. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in the case of CIT v. Nellaiappan (supra), held that the said expenditure as capital expenditure as the assessee has take....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court is not correct. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the facts of the case are identical to that of the Madras High Court and Apex Court. 6. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court at para 6 of its judgment observed as follows:- "6. The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in our country was laid down by this court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 34. In that case, the appellant-company had acquired from the Government of Assam lease of certain limestone quarries for a period of 20 years for the purpose of manufacture of cement. The lessee had, inter alia, agreed to pay an annual sum during the whole period of the lease as a protection fee and in consideration of that payment, the lessor undertook not to grant to any person any lease, permit or prospecting licence for limestone. This court examined tests laid down in various cases for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure. One of the standard tests now in use was laid down in the case of Atherton v. British Insulated and Helsb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by spending the money was that it got the lease of a new building at a low rent. From the business point of view, therefore, the assessee got the benefit of reduced rent. The High Court has, therefore, rightly considered this as obtaining a business advantage. The expenditure is, therefore, to be treated as revenue expenditure." 7. We have gone through the judgment of Madras High Court in TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. (supra). The Madras High Court after considering Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) of the Act and the judgments of Apex Court in Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577 and Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank (2007) 2 SCC 230, found that similar expenditure is revenue in nature. In fact, the Madras High Court has observed as follows:- "7. Similarly, there should be a literal rule of interpretation of a statute, which is the first and foremost principle of interpretation and where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule and even if the literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, it has to be followed. The language empl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 16. The case law of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mother Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 392 ITR 628 (SC) (as referred to by Ld. CIT-DR) is a case wherein a firm as owner of the land constructed hospital building. The firm leased the land to a tenant who reimbursed the cost of construction of building and claimed depreciation thereon. In this context, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the tenant would not be eligible for depreciation as per Explanation 1 to section 32(1) on the expenditure incurred towards construction of building since only when the assessee holds a lease right or other right of occupancy and any capital expenditure is incurred by the assessee on the construction of any structure or doing of any work in or in relation to and by way of renovation or extension of or improvement to the building and the expenditure on construction is incurred by the assessee, the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has denied the claim of depreciation for the reason that where construction was not carried out by assessee himself, said explanation to section 32 would not come to the aid of assessee for claiming depreciation. However, in the prese....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al of the affidavit, we find the reasons stated therein are bonafide, which really prevented the Appellant- Revenue in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 59 days is condoned. 51. We find ground No. 1 is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 52. We find ground Nos. 2 to 10 are similar to the ground Nos. 2 to 10 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 3326/Chny/2019 for AY 2017-18, wherein, we have taken a view in confirming the order of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee as revenue expenditure and the same view is equally applicable to the year under consideration. Thus, the ground Nos. 2 to 10 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 53. We find ground Nos. 11 to 15 are similar to the ground Nos. 1(i) & (ii) raised by the Revenue on same identical facts in ITA No. 3326/Chny/2019 for AY 2017-18, wherein, we have taken a view in confirming the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue and the same view taken by us is equally applicable to the year under consideration. Thus, the ground Nos. 11 to 15 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 54. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 706/Chny/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. AR submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), that the appellate authority has power to direct the Assessing Officer to consider even if any claim was not made in the original return of income. The ld. DR did not dispute the same. Thus, taking support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), we deem it proper to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the above claim and allow the same in terms of our decision hereinabove to ground Nos. 1(i) & (ii) raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 3326/Chny/2019 for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 66. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 94/Chny/2023 in the case of San Tex Inc v. ACIT for AY 2017- 18 [assessee's appeal] 67. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 68. We find ground Nos. 3 to 5 and additional ground Nos. 6 & 7 raised by the assessee are similar to ground Nos. 1(i) & (ii) as raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 3326/Chny/20....