Dated : 17[Th] November, 2008 v. Nirmal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.680 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-17V/s.Uday Rajaram Lad ..... Appellant.....Respondent Mr.P.K.Kamwal, A.G.P., for the appellant. CORAM : SHRI P.B.MAJMUDAR & SHRI J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 17[th] NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. 1.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2.This appeal is directed against the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.9222/Mum/2004, pertaining to theAssessment Year 1999-2000. The question which arises for considerationin this appeal is as to whether the expenditure incurred on alterations andrenovations of the tenanted premises is to be deducted from the amountreceived by the assessee on surrender of the tenancy. The Tribunal afterconsidering the order of the CIT(A), has given cogent reasons forupholding the decision of the CIT(A) in appeal. While deciding the issuethe Tribunal has also relied upon a decision in the case ofACIT V. Nirmal Warehousing Agency, 77 ITD 1, a reference of which was made in the order of the Tribunal. 3.The Tribunal has given detailed reasoning in Para No.6, whichreads as under : - 6.We have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and have gone through the orders of theauthorities below and Judgments cited by learned AR of the assessee. We find that learned CIT(A) has examined in detail the nature of expenses incurred by the assessee and has disallowed those expense, which were not ofmaterials on record and have gone through the orders of theauthorities below and Judgments cited by learned AR of the assessee. We find that learned CIT(A) has examined in detail the nature of expenses incurred by the assessee and has disallowed those expense, which were not ofcapital nature and of which supporting/ evidence couldnot be produced by the assessee. Judgments cited bythe learned AR of the assessee support the case of theassessee. not be produced by the assessee. Judgments cited bythe learned AR of the assessee support the case of theassessee. 4.In our view, no interference is called for in the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The judgments of the Tribunal as wellas CIT(A) are based on appreciation of evidence on record. No question oflaw much less any substantial question of law arises for determination ofthis Court in this appeal. We do not find any substance in the appeal andthe same is dismissed. ( J.P.DEVADHAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )