ACIT CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI V. TATA REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 713/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4378 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R MANJUNATHA SWAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRAJ SHAH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Corroborative evidences; Capital receipt; Surrender of tenancy right; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; TDS; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 40(a)(ia); 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ITA NO.713/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15 ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), R. NO.552, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S TATA REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ELPHINSTON BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, 10, VEER NARIMAN ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 PAN NO. AACCT6242L ( / REVENUE) ( / ASSESSEE) / REVENUE BY SHRI R.MANJUNATHA SWAMY / ASSESSEE BY SHRI NIRAJ SHAH / DATE OF HEARING : 19/02/2019 / DATE OF ORDER: 09/05/2019 / O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, MUMBAI, DATED 20/11/2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISE D BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER:- 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO.713MUM/2018 TATA REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 2 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2014,IT WAS DIRECTED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A SHOULD BE MADE EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EARN ANY EXEMPT I NCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR.' 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE A CT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF DISALLOWED EXPENSE U/S.14A IN ITS RETURN BUT DID NOT COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D. 3.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE ON PURCHASE OF TENANCY RIGHT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED ENDURING RIGHT FOR USING THE PROPERTY AND HENCE THE TRANSACTION SHOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 3. THE BRIEF, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO NOT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING INVESTMENTS OF RS. 1,066.91 CRORE IN FUNDS FROM WHICH INCOME WOULD BE EXEMPT AND THE ACT UAL AMOUNT DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IS OF RS. 51,15,9 60/- AND FURTHER THAT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE EX PENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE RULE 8D R.W. SECTIO N 14A IS BEING REJECTED FOR BEING WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIATION . ACCORDINGLY THE AO WORKED OUT DISALLOWANCE UNDER CL AUSE (II) AND (III) OF THE RULE 8D(2) TOTALLING TO RS.22,88,5 2,118/-. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) GRANTED RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HELD THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNE D ANY EXEMPT INCOME, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS PERMISSIB LE. THE ITA NO.713MUM/2018 TATA REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 3 LD. CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF ACCORDINGLY EXCEPT FOR TH E DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. APROPOS GROUND NUMBER ONE THAT NO DISALLOWANCE I S TO BE DONE UNDER 14A IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE FOLLOWI NG CASE LAWS:- I. CHEM INVEST LTD. VS CIT (ITA NO.749 OF 2014)(DELHI HIGH COURT) II. ACIT VS BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. (ITA NO.51 OF 201 6) (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) HE SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOWING THE ABOVE CASE LAWS, IT AT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 & 2 013-14, HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. 7. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE NOTE THAT THE ISS UE ABOVE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEC ISIONS AS ABOVE. HENCE GROUND NO.1 STANDS DISMISSED. 8. APROPOS GROUND NO.2. ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THE GROUND IS MISPLACED IT IS AS MUCH AS LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE EXCLUDING THE AM OUNT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. ITA NO.713MUM/2018 TATA REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 4 9. APROPOS GROUND NO.3. BRIEF, FACTS ON THIS ISSUE ARE AS UNDER:- DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID PREMIUM OF RS . 2,50,00,000/-ON LEASE RENT. OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEE CLAIMED RS. 50 LAKHS TO BRANDON & COMPANY PVT. LTD. (BCPL) AS PREMIUM ON LEAVE AND LICENSE, REPRESENT AMORTIZED AMOUNT PAID TO THE PREVIOUS TENANT. THE S AID CONSIDERATION WAS PAID TO BCPL AS COMPENSATION FOR PROCURING THE SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS FOR ASSES SEE TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES FOR ITS COMMERCIAL USE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE AO TO JUSTIFY THE CLA IM. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS REPLY. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED BUT NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE BY THE AO DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASON:- 1. THE TENANCY RIGHT IS A CAPITAL ASSET AS PER INC OME TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY REGISTERED DOCUMENT/SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AS PER MAHARASHTRA RE NT CONTROL ACT, 1991 WHICH CAN SUBSTANTIATE CLAIM OF PURCHASE OF TENANCY RIGHT. 3. ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IS THAT IT HAS ENTERED INT O LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT AND ON WHICH LEASE RENT IS BEING PAID. IF THE SUBMISSION IS ACCEPTED FOR WHILE, THEN ALSO ASSESSE E CANNOT CLAIM AMORTIZATION OF LEASE PREMIUM PAID AS IT IS AGAIN C APITAL IN NATURE. 4. THE TENANCY RIGHT IS NOT A BUSINESS ASSET FAILIN G UNDER SECTION 32 OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED TENANCY RIGHT WHICH IS PERPETUAL IN NATURE AND ASSESSEE HAS ENDURING BENEFIT FROM IT . 6. NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDU CTED TDS ON ABOVE PAYMENT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA ) R.W.S. 194IA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. HENCE, PROVISIONS OF DISALLOWAN CE U/S 40(A)(IA) IS ALSO APPLICABLE . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE BY THE AO AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO DISALLOWED PAYMENT FOR TENANCY RIGHT AMOUNTING TO R S. 50,00,000/-. ITA NO.713MUM/2018 TATA REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 5 10. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT A SSESSEE SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER:- 1. AS SUBMITTED VIDE SUBMISSION CHART FILED WITH Y OUR HONOUR ON 12 OCT 2017, THE APPELLANT HAD PAID COMPENSATION AMOUNTING TO INR 25,000,000 TO BRANDON & COMPANY PR IVATE LIMITED (BRANDON') FOR VACATING THE PREMISES OCCUPI ED BY THEM AND AVAILING THE SAID PREMISES ON LEAVE AND LICENSE BASIS FOR A PERIOD OF 60 MONTHS ON THE SAME TERMS AT WHICH TH E SAID PREMISES WAS GIVEN BY EWART INVESTMENTS LTD ('EWART ) TO BRANDON, WHICH IS BENEFICIAL TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED ONE FIFTH OF THE SAID AMOUNT AS REVENUE EXP ENDITURE DURING THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH THE LEA RNED AO DISALLOWED TREATING IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 2. IN LAST HEARING, YOUR HONOUR HAD ENQUIRED ABOUT THE TAX TREATMENT OF SUCH COMPENSATION GIVEN BY BRANDON IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY BRANDON T HAT THEY HAVE OFFERED THE SAID COMPENSATION OF INR 25,000,00 0 AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' AND HAVE PAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX ON THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2012-13. 3. AS SUBMITTED DURING THE LAST HEARING AND IN THE SUBMISSION CHART THAT THE CAPTIONED PAYMENT IS A REVENUE EXPEN DITURE AS THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER ACQUIRED ANY CAPITAL ASSE T NOR ACQUIRED ANY ENDURING RIGHT/ BENEFIT. 4. FURTHER, AS SUBMITTED DURING THE LAST HEARING, W HETHER THE PAYMENT IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR REVENUE EXP ENDITURE, IS TO BE EXAMINED FROM THE PAYER'S PERSPECTIVE AND BASED ON THE FACTORS RELATED TO THE TRANSACTION. THE TAX TRE ATMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT CANNOT BE A DETERMINATIVE FA CTOR FOR EVALUATING DEDUCTIBILITY OF SUCH PAYMENT IN THE HAN DS OF THE PAYER. 5. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE TAX TREATMENT PROVI DED FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM IN THE HANDS OF ONE PARTY TO THE TR ANSACTION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CONCLUSIVE FACTOR TO DETE RMINE TAXABILITY/ DEDUCTIBILITY IN THE HANDS ,OF THE OTHE R PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT PLACES S TRONG RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COUR T IN CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. V/S. C/T [(1980) 124 ITR 1] WHEREIN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER (REL EVANT EXTRACT REPRODUCED): 'IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT/S NOT A UNIVERSALLY TRUE PR OPOSITION THAT WHAT MAY BE A CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE P AYEE MUST NECESSARILY HE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO T HE PAYER. THE FACT THAT A CERTAIN PAYMENT CONSTITUTES INCOME OR C APITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT IS NOT MATERI AL IN ITA NO.713MUM/2018 TATA REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 6 DETERMINING WHETHER THE PAYMENT IS REVENUE OR CAPIT AL DISBURSEMENT QUA THE PAYER..........WHETHER IT IS C APITAL EXPENDITURE OR REVENUE EXPENDITURE WOULD HAVE TO HE DETERMINED HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE TRANS ACTION AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. 6. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS BEF ORE YOUR HONOUR THAT THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY BRANDON IN ITS I NCOME-TAX RETURN IS NOT A RELEVANT FACTOR TO DETERMINE THE CA PITAL OR REVENUE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE A PPELLANT. IN ABSENCE OF BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE ANY CAPITAL A SSET IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT, THE COMPENSATION PAID OUT O F BUSINESS EXIGENCY, WHICH HAS NOT RESULTED INTO ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING NATURE, SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE H ONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF AND EMPIRE JUTE CO (SUPRA) AND CIT V/S. MADRAS AUTO SERVICE (P.) LTD. [(1998) 99 TAXMA N 575]. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DECISION OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MADRAS AUTO SERVICE (SUPRA) IS AS UNDER: IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS EXPENDITURE IS REVE NUE EXPENDITURE OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, ONE HAS TO LOOK AT THE EXPENDITURE FROM A COMMERCIAL POINT OF VIEW.......S INCE THE ASSET CREATED BY SPENDING THE SAID AMOUNTS DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE GOT THE BUSINESS ADVA NTAGE OF USING MODERN PREMISES AT A LOW RENT, THUS, SAVING CONSIDERABLE REVENUE EXPENDITURE FOR THE NEXT 39 YE ARS, BOTH THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE HIGH COURT HAVE RIGHTLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE LOOKED UP ON AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ' 7. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT PRAYS BEFORE YOUR HONOUR THAT THE COMPENS ATION PAID AND CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A REVENUE DEDUCTION AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF INR 5,000 ,000 MADE BY THE LEARNED A 0 SHOULD BE DELETED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN CASE THE PAYMENT IS CHARA CTERIZED AS CAPITAL ONE, THEN THE DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALL OWED TO THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. 10. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 9.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE, DISCUSSION OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ORAL CONTENTIONS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAD PAID COMPENSATION AMOUNTING T O INR 25,000,000 TO BRANDON & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ITA NO.713MUM/2018 TATA REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 7 ('BRANDON') FOR VACATING THE PREMISES OCCUPIED BY T HEM AND AVAILING THE SAID PREMISES ON LEAVE AND LICENSE BAS IS FOR A PERIOD OF 60 MONTHS ON THE SAME TERMS AT WHICH THE SAID PREMISES WAS GIVEN BY EWART INVESTMENTS LTD ('EWART ) TO BRANDON. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED ONE FIFTH OF THE SAI D AMOUNT AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE DURING THE CAPTIONED ASSESSM ENT YEAR, WHICH THE AO DISALLOWED TREATING IT AS CAPITA L EXPENDITURE. THOUGH THE BRANDON HAS OFFERED THE SAI D COMPENSATION OF INR 25,000,000 AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' AND HAVE PAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI NS TAX ON THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, BUT IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAS NEITHER ACQ UIRED ANY CAPITAL ASSET NOR ACQUIRED ANY ENDURING RIGHT! BENE FIT. IN ABSENCE OF BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE ANY CAPITAL ASSE T IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT, THE COMPENSATION PAID OUT O F BUSINESS EXIGENCY, WHICH HAS NOT RESULTED INTO ADVA NTAGE OF ENDURING NATURE, WOULD ALLOWABLE AS A REVENUE EXPEN DITURE . IN THIS REGARD THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONOURABLE 'SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO (SUPRA) AND CIT V/S. MADRAS AUTO SERVICE (P.) LTD. [(1998) 99 TAXMAN 575] IS FOUND TO BE APPLICABLE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DECISION OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MADRAS AUTO SERVICE (SUPRA) IS AS UNDER: '...IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, ONE HAS TO LOOK AT THE EXPENDITURE FROM A COMMERCIAL POINT OF VIEW .SINCE THE ASSET CREATED BY SPENDING THE SAID AMOUNTS DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE GOT THE BUSINESS A DVANTAGE OF USING MODERN PREMISES AT A LOW RENT, THUS, SAVIN G CONSIDERABLE REVENUE EXPENDITURE FOR THE NEXT 39 YE ARS, BOTH THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE HIGH COURT HAVE RIGHTLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE LOOKE D UPON AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND DISCUSSION THE OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION OF THE AO IS NOT FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIABLE AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND RAISED IS AL LOWED. 11. AGAINST ABOVE ORDER, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO.713MUM/2018 TATA REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 8 ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE COMPENSATION TO OBTAIN THE PR EMISES ON LEASE FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. HE SUBMITTED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY CAPITAL ASSET. HENCE, HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT PAID WAS ITSELF ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING PROPORTIONATELY OVER THE PERIOD OF FI VE YEARS OF LEASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSE WAS ALL OWED IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS YEA R THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE. THE L D. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A REASONABLE ORDER WHICH DOESNT NEED ANY INTERFERENC E. 13. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REL IED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT ASSESS EE HAS PAID THE AFORESAID SUM AS COMPENSATION FOR OBTAININ G THE PREMISES ON LEASE FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. ASSES SEE HAD PAID THE SUM IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. ASSESSEE HAS AMORTIZED THE AFORESAID SUM AT THE RATE OF 20% FOR THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS OF THE LEASE. THE REVENUE ALLOWED THE AFORESAID ITA NO.713MUM/2018 TATA REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 9 AMORTISATION IN THE EARLIER TWO YEARS. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. O N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO T SPENT THE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET. ON THE TO UCHSTONE OF DECISION FROM THE HONBLE APEX COURT ISSUE IN T HE CASE OF MADRAS AUTO SERVICE (SUPRA), THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN CLAIMING THE SUM PROPORTIONATELY OVER THE PERIOD OF LEASE. THIS HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN EARLIER TWO YEARS. IN ABSE NCE OF ANY CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE AO TO TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID DISCUSS ION AND PRECEDENT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY BE OF FORMED THE SAME. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/05/2019 SD/- S D/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (SHAMIM YAHYA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 09/05/2019 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. ITA NO.713MUM/2018 TATA REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 10 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. !'# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $# $# % ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. $# $# % / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. ()*# ! + , $# # +- , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '#( ! //TRUE CO// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) $ %&', / ITAT, MUMBAI