Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.B. Ramakrishnan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 120 of 1965 (Reference No. 52 of 1965)
Judge
Reported in[1969]74ITR761(Mad)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentS.B. Ramakrishnan
Appellant AdvocateV. Balasubrahmanyan and ;J. Jayaraman, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateS. Swaminathan, Adv. for ;O.V. Natesan, Adv.
Cases ReferredAssam Bengal Cement Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income
Excerpt:
- - laid down the tests, it failed to properly apply them to the facts......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.....
Judgment:

Veeraswami, J.

1. 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 thepayment 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]27ITR34(SC) ., whicn. laid down the tests, it failed to properly apply them to the facts. We do not think that this criticism is justified. 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //