Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 3175 2012 SLD 3175 (2012) 343 ITR 309
Bombay High Court
IT APPEAL NO. 4208 OF 2009 JANUARY 30, 2012
M.S. SANKLECHA AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. F.V. Irani and A.K. Jasani for the
Respondent.

Commissioner of IncomE tax, CentraLII, Mumbai v. Talathi and Panthaky Associated (P.) Ltd.

Law:

Section:

Section 30, read with section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance for buildings - Assessment year 2003-04 - Assessee-company was carrying on its business in a building taken on rent - Building was declared to be unsafe for occupation by Municipal Corporation - Consequently, an agreement was entered into between owners, tenant, other occupants and a developer, under which developer was to repair and reconstruct building at its own cost, and, after that certain area was to be handed over to co-owners - Assessee was also given its equivalent portion on condition that it would contribute towards cost incurred on repair and reconstruction - Assessee's share of cost was arrived at Rs. 1.50 crores; said agreement also provided that there would be no increase in rent payable by assessee - On above facts, Assessing Officer held that assessee had secured rights over portion of building on payment of Rs. 1.50 crores which constituted deemed ownership of building - Accordingly, Assessing Officer held expenditure of Rs. 1.50 crores to be capital in nature and disallowed it - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal reversed order of Assessing Officer - Whether by contributing an amount of Rs. 1.50 crores towards re-construction, assessee obtained a commercial advantage of securing tenancy of an equivalent area of premises on same rent as before - Held, yes - Whether since there was no acquisition of a capital asset and occupation of assessee continued in character of a tenancy, expenditure of Rs. 1.50 crores could not be regarded as capital in nature but revenue to be allowable by way of deduction - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] FACTS The assessee-company was a tenant in a building occupying 5000 sq. ft. The building was declared by the municipal corporation to be unsafe for occupation and an eviction notice was served on the occupants. Thereafter, a partition suit was preferred by the co-owners of the building. A court receiver was appointed and the assessee being a tenant in the building continued to pay rent to the receiver. In that suit consent terms were entered into under which a developer was to repair and reconstruct 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