Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs State Industries Promotion ... on 30 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2000]245ITR480(MAD)
JUDGMENT N.K. Jain, J.
1. The above tax case is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-II, Madras, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law for the assessment year 1984-85, for the opinion of this court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the fees paid by the assessee to the Registrar of Companies in connection with the increase of authorised capital of the company should be allowed as a revenue expenditure ?"
2. Learned standing counsel for the Department submits that this court held that the expenditure was considered to be revenue expenditure as per the decision reported in CIT v. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. [1981] 130 ITR 385. But the same has been reversed and held that this expenditure is to be taken as capital expenditure and is not liable for deduction, by the Supreme Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT and the controversy has been decided in favour of the Revenue.
3. Despite service, the respondent has not appeared and controverted the legal position.
4. In view of the above statement and for the reasons mentioned in the decision cited supra, the question of law referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue, The tax case is disposed of accordingly. No costs.