| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4201 (SC) : (2020) 272 TAXMAN 0108 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 261 Section 37(1)
Where the Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 4200 (Cal-HC), whereby the High Court following the decision of apex Court in CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. (1998) 99 Taxman 575 (SC) : (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 1407 (SC) held that when certain amount spent by assessee in making additions and alterations is a capital expenditure on which assessee had regularly been claiming depreciation, it can be said that assessee would not be entitled to claim depreciation if the sum allegedly spent on renovation was also treated as a capital expenditure, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as withdrawn, leaving question(s) of law open.
|
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition - Business expenditure - Addition made by AO on account of renovation expenses--Revenue or capital expenditure
Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (1998) 99 Taxman 575 (SC) : (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT0 1407 (SC) held that when certain amount spent by assessee in making additions and alterations is a capital expenditure on which assessee had regularly been claiming depreciation, it can be said that assessee would not be entitled to claim depreciation if the sum allegedly spent on renovation was also treated as a capital expenditure, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as withdrawn, leaving questions. Held: Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide F.No. 390/Misc./116/2017-JC, dated 22-8-2019, sought permission to withdraw this special leave petition along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect. Permission was granted, subject to just exceptions. The special leave petition and pending applications were dismissed as withdrawn, leaving question(s) of law open.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : SLP dismissed.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|