What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case which dismissed the revenue's appeal. The current appeal was closed with the understanding that parties would abide by any different conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in a pending SLP.

The appeal concerns the Assessment Year 2013-14 and challenges an ITAT order. The core issue is whether a lump sum payment for lease premium should be treated as a capital expenditure.

What were the issues?

The primary legal issue is the classification of a lump sum lease premium payment as either a capital or revenue expenditure.

Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd vs ACIT | Delhi High Court 2023

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 151/2023

KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD ..... Appellant

Through: Ms Surekha Raman, Adv.

versus

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

15.03.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.12140/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM Appl.12141/2023 2. Allowed, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. ITA 151/2023 3. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 4. The challenge in the appeal is directed to the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 5. The issue which arises for consideration is: whether lump sum payment made towards lease premium should be treated as capital expenditure?

ITA 151/2023

1/2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 13:34:39

Ms Surekha Raman, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, has fairly placed before us, an order of the coordinate bench of this Court dated 29.07.2022 passed in ITA No.236/2022. 6.1 The coordinate bench, following the decision dated 12.07.2012 rendered by another coordinate bench in ITA No. 205/2010, titled: Krishak Bharti Cooperative Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax dismissed the appeal of the appellant/revenue. 7. We have been informed by Ms Surekha Raman, that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) [i.e., SLP(C) No.35813/2012] has been preferred vis-a-vis the decision rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in ITA No.205/2010, which is pending consideration. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is closed, with a caveat, that if the Supreme Court was to reach a different conclusion, parties will abide by the decision so rendered.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

MARCH 15, 2023/pmc

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 151/2023

2/2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 13:34:39

KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments