The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Chaudhary Inds
High Court
04 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Chaudhary Inds
Date of order
04 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Chaudhary Inds, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
5 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 168 OF 200
5 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 168 OF 200
5 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 168 OF 200
The Commissioner of Income Tax... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Chaudhary Inds. ... Respondent
Mr.S.M. Shah with Mr. Sandeep Wagnik and Mr. P.S.
Sahadevan for the Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED: MARCH 04, 2008
CORAM: F.I.
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: MARCH 04, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. The Revenue has preferred this appeal contending
that as the right had been given to assessee for
utilisation of the plot for 10 years, the same was
of an enduring nature and consequently it ought to
be treated as capital expenditure. The Commissioner
(Appeals) in an exhaustive judgment after
considering the terms by which the Guj. Maritime
Board permitted the assessee to use the premises for
the purpose of ship breaking and the analysis of the
various judgments of the Supreme Court, recorded a
finding as under :
"..... in the present case, the regulation
provides even the possession of plot shall
remain with the G.M.B. and the appellant
was given the only permission to use the
plot for ship breaking business purpose...."
. There are further findings that the assessee
cannot permit other person to use the plot for any
other purpose whatsoever. Considering this
material, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the
amounts spent was in the nature of revenue
expenditure.
. This findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) has
been confirmed by the tribunal in its impugned
order.
. Considering two concurrent findings of fact and
though the period is 10 years, the nature of right
was merely in the nature of licence. We find no
reason to differ with the view taken by the
Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned tribunal.
Hence, the question of law would not arise. Hence,
appeal dismissed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.