IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 ITA.No. 237 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.252/COCH/2000 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT: ------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.KERALA CHEMICALS AND PROTEINS LTD., PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, ALONG WITH ITA NO. 241 OF 2009 AND ITA NO. 330 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 237,241 & 330 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The first two questions raised are covered by decision of the Supreme Court reported in CIT V. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS, 290 I.T.R. 667 (SC). Following the said judgment, we dismiss the appeals on these two questions. So far as the last question is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has only followed the decision of the Orissa High Court wherein the Orissa High Court has held that the contribution given for constructing a primary health centre is an allowable deduction as it caters to the needs of the employees. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal. The case herein is that the respondent assessee constructed and handed over the building to the hospital authorities in the land belonging to the Government. It is a finding of the Tribunal that the employees of the assessee are the beneficiaries of the hospital constructed by the assessee. Even though construction of the building is capital in nature, 2 so long as the building is handed over to the hospital authorities, and the assessee does not retain the same, the expenditure is once and for all incurred without retaining the asset for itself. Consequently the Tribunal allowed it as a revenue expenditure. We therefore dismiss the appeals on this issue also. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3