Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that the decision relied on by the Tribunal in JCIT v. Mukund Ltd (2007) 106 ITD 231 (SB) (Mum.)(Trib.) is perverse and not applicable to the facts of the appellant. Special Bench of the Tribunal gave its view regarding advance payment of rent to be capital expenditure on findings, inter alia, that there was termination clause, by which premature termination did not provide for refund of premium, claimed to be advanced rent, there was no clause in the agreement to show that the amount of Rs.2.04 crore was paid by the assessee as advance rent for all future years and the lump sum payment of future years rent had been paid to avail some concession for advance payment of rent or for some other business consideration. It is clear from   the  facts and perusal of terms of leases between assessee and its lessors, such terms are not there between them. Accordingly the ratio is not applicable. That substantial amount of money was paid as premium, claimed and shown by assessee to be advance rents and where rents reserved are as above, it follows there was no contention raised before the Tribunal regarding the rents reserved corresponding to market rate of rent. Accordingly the Court held that rents reserved are depressed rents.  (AY.2008-09)