HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 168 OF 200 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 168 OF 200 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax... Appellant Versus M/s. Chaudhary Inds. ... Respondent Mr.S.M. Shah with Mr. Sandeep Wagnik and Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 04, 2008 DATED: MARCH 04, 2008 DATED: MARCH 04, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Revenue has preferred this appeal contending that as the right had been given to assessee for utilisation of the plot for 10 years, the same was of an enduring nature and consequently it ought to be treated as capital expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) in an exhaustive judgment after considering the terms by which the Guj. Maritime Board permitted the assessee to use the premises for the purpose of ship breaking and the analysis of the various judgments of the Supreme Court, recorded a finding as under : "..... in the present case, the regulation provides even the possession of plot shall remain with the G.M.B. and the appellant was given the only permission to use the plot for ship breaking business purpose...." . There are further findings that the assessee cannot permit other person to use the plot for any other purpose whatsoever. Considering this material, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amounts spent was in the nature of revenue expenditure. . This findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been confirmed by the tribunal in its impugned order. . Considering two concurrent findings of fact and though the period is 10 years, the nature of right was merely in the nature of licence. We find no reason to differ with the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned tribunal. Hence, the question of law would not arise. Hence, appeal dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)