Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 2596 2009 SLD 2596 (2009) 314 ITR 329
Patna High Court
TAX CASE Nos. 2 AND 3 OF 1991 AND TAX CASE Nos. 11 AND 12 OF 1993 FEBRUARY 21, 2008.
CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD AND, JAYANANDAN SINGH, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

Alkem Laboratories P. Ltd.

Law:

Section:

S.K. Sharan for the Petitioner. A.K. Rastogi for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. - In all these references, common questions of law with little variation of facts, arise and as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Tax Cases Nos. 2 and 3 of 1991 2. The assessee, M/s. Alkem Laboratories (P.) Limited, is a private limited company deriving income from manufacturing and sale of medicines. The assessee claimed deduction under two heads, viz., Rs. 70,000 on account of repairs of rental premises and Rs. 10,998 spent on plumbing work. The Assessing Officer disallowed both the claims as he was of the opinion that these two items were capital expenditure of the assessee. The assessee then preferred an appeal, inter alia, contending that the expenses it claimed were purely of the nature of repairs and no new assets having come into being, the deduction is fit to be granted. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction of the amount spent on the repairs but did not express any opinion in respect of the amount spent in plumbing work. While doing so, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that repairing expenditure incurred by the assessee in respect of the tenanted building cannot be allowed unless there is an agreement between the landlord and the assessee in view of section 30(a)( i) of the Income-tax Act,' 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". However, he was of the opinion that even if the expenditure of a tenanted building cannot be allowed under section 30(a)( i) of the Act unless there is an agreement between the land lord and the assessee, but it can be allowed under section 37 of the Act. 3. The Revenue, aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal before the Patna Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal". The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of Rs. 70,000 the amount spent in the repair of the rental premises. 4. On these facts, the Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, had referred the following question of law for our opinion. "Whether, on the facts and in the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492