Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges

    Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras v. S.B Ramakrishnan

    Veeraswami, J.:— The question in this reference turns on the character of an outgoing of Rs. 1,001 as to whether it is a capital or revenue expenditure. We are concerned with the assessment year 1962-63. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of ready-made garments under the name and style of “Sri Murugan Dress Stores he had several branches and the one at Tanjore had to be vacated under rent control proceedings. And so, he obtained a lease of a new building and, in doing so, he had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,001 to the landlord as an extra payment over and above the stipulated rent, which was not refundable. The assessee claimed deduction of this amount as revenue expenditure which was disallowed by the Income-Tax Officer with whom the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concurred. But the Tribunal found that the expenditure was very much akin to the payment of rent for the new premises and allowed the appeal of the assessee. So the reference arises, the question being:

    “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,001 was deductible in arriving at the assessee's income from business for the assessment year 1962–63?”

    2. For the revenue it is urged that, while the Tribunal referred to the appropriate decisions, particularly Assam Bengal Cement Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1955] 27 I.T.R 34 S.C., which laid down the tests, it failed to properly apply them to the facts. We do not think that this criticism is justified.

    3. The expenditure does not appear to have been incurred for the purpose of bringing into existence any asset or advantage of an enduring character. There is nothing on record to show that the sum was paid to the landlord in order to secure the lease for any term of years. The circumstances of the case show that the expenditure had to be incurred by the assessee for the purpose of continued running of his business, though in a new premises. The object of the assessee, as it seems to us on the facts, was merely, by incurring the business expenditure, to produce profits and not to create any asset of a capital character. That will suffice to dispose of the reference. The reference is answered against the revenue with costs, counsel's fee Rs. 250.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras v. S.B Ramakrishnan
    (Feb 25, 1969)