Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. C...

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.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan