- (1.) The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 7th June, 2005 by which the learned Tribunal agreeing with the views expressed by the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue.
(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the revenue has come up once again in appeal. The first question proposed is as follows: "[1] Whether the I.T.A.T. erred in law in holding that the compensation amount paid by the assessee to various parties for acquiring permanent right to possession of a particular house property is revenue expenditure whereas the said expenses incurred being of enduring in nature which is a capital expenditure and as such the decision of the I.T.A.T. is perverse -
(3.) The question of the amount paid by the assessee to various parties in order to obtain vacant possession of the house property does not become capital expenditure for the simple reason, as pointed out by the learned Tribunal, that "the property was shown as stock in trade by the assessee. Therefore, the expenditure incurred for acquiring such property cannot be said as capital in nature.";