Addl. CIT, New Delhi M/s. Global Health (P) Ltd., New Delhi

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT
&
SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.-3769/Del/2017
(Assessment Year:2012-13)

Addl. CIT
Special Range-4
PAN No. AACCG2681C
Appellant 

Vs.

Glob
al Health (P) Ltd.
E-18, Defence Colony
New Dlehi.
Respondent

Revenue by Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR
Assessee by Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv.
Date of hearing: 30.12.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2020

ORDER

PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM

Challenging the order dated 15/2/2017 in appeal No. 256/2016-17 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-39, New Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) in the case of M/s Global Health Private Limited (“theassessee”) for the assessment year 2012-13, Revenue preferred this appeal stating that the expenses towards fees to HUDA is a one-time expenditure and the benefit arising out of this expenditure is of enduring in nature, and therefore it is not Revenue expenditure in its nature.

2. Assessee is a private limited company incorporated on 30/08/2004with an aim to establish and Manage Medanta The Medicity to provide alltypes of health, pathology and medical facilities. For the assessment year2012-13 they have filed their return of income on 30/9/2011 declaring nil income after setting of brought forward losses to the tune of Rs. 48, 89, 23, 321/-under normal provisions and income of Rs. 72, 28, 29, 359/-under section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). During theassessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has debited Rs. 3, 48, 02, 652/-from the P&L account on account ofleasing fee paid to HUDA and stated that such fee was paid towards chargesfor obtaining admission to lease out to build a property constructed on landallotted by HUDA, according to the norms the property owner can give theproperty on rent after making payment of Rs. 400 per square meters. Basingon that learned Assessing Officer inferred that the assessee company has itself admitted that it is one-time payment to HUDA, a charge for obtaining permission for renting out a portion of the property and therefore, in terms of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvind Mills Ltd vs. CIT 197 ITR 422 (SC) such capital expenditure would not become Revenue expenditure merely by reason that it was incurred in connection with the illness activities which ultimately resulted in efficiently carrying on day-today business. On this premise learned Assessing Officer brought the said amount of Rs. 2, 22, 77, 740/-to tax, after allowing 5% thereof towards depreciation.

To know more in details find the attachemnt file