The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Snam Abrasives (Pvt) Ltd on 5 August, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Snam Abrasives (Pvt) Ltd on 5 August, 2008

Bench: K.L.Manjunath

IN 111$ I-IEGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT 

mun ms: me am my or wens':   'A :1    

PRESENT

ms I-IOIPBLE um. JUSTSCE K-13¢.     A'

we Homw mnwmcz 
Inccme Tax   V

Between:

1. The Commissioner of'«J;ico1Iie~t:ax""   
C.R.Buiiding '  ' = '   
Queens Road V  
Bangalore ____ H   *

2. The Joint  
Assessments ._ V .    ..
Special Range-s_5 » 

C.I?.Bui1ding  *
Queens Road

 E  V' .. Appellants

(By? ;-xi mi, Advocate)

'M/s-Sam Abriaeives (P) Ltci.
' " N¢;.40---A, First Gross
 .G13pfa» ..Lay'm._1t

.. Respondent

This income tax appeal is ﬁled u-/s 360}; of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of order dt.10.2.mO4 passed in ITA No.45'?/Bang/2000 fer the assessment year 1994-95 Hon'ble court to formulate the substantial questions of therein and etc. L' 5 . ~ This appeal coming up for ﬁnal Manjunath ~J., delivered the following:-

Revenue has come up in passed by the Income Tax Appellate in {TA No.457fBmg/ 2000 ferv eslscsgszveenip 1994~95 datw 19.02.2094. The mctsprthe 'castle

2. The in the ma11uﬁacturc___¢:>f V carbiles. During the relevant rent of Rs.3,45,57S ;.

to M/s property on lease for a asscssee has to pay 125.11» per fer yeaxe. The Assessing Oﬂieer passed an tteaﬁng the amount of advance lent paid the MA/s Sipoot L1m' ited as a capital e:xpez1dItu' re and " __é{'*xevenee...expenditum. The aseessee being aggrieved' by the by the Assessing 0%' ﬁled ml appeal befme the h of Income Tax Appeals, which appeal came to be on the ground that the advance rent paid cannot be fieated as capital expenditure, it is a revenue expenditme. {V Aocoxtiingly, the appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved b'j;,.3a;mc, Revenue had ﬂied an appeal bcfon: the Inmmc 'l'rib11nal, which appeal came to be dismisecd.

3. Against the ooncurmnt ﬁndifigs TtEﬁ:'1es'"e:~_ present appeal is ﬁhd on the §}f "

Whether on the facts and in afivanoc pent payable by 3 Insane has Q5" asset or a mvcmw expenditure?

4. The .<;i~f appeal is aqnmely covcmd by» wet" in 203 rm 320 --

commssierzsn vs. H.M.'l'. LTD. Since the H' point in t:IispiJ;'£:a;u is-.:_ intx:g:ra, this appcal has to be glismissggg "ronowin"g~ %%%% _a*fomsaid judgment. Accordingly, we anﬁéécr uof law against the Revenue and this $1 is V" " T ..

Sd/-

Iudqe Sd/---

Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court