Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ranchi Appellants In Both Cases v. Central Coalfields Ltd
High Court
01 Nov 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jhar_pg
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ranchi Appellants In Both Cases v. Central Coalfields Ltd
Date of order
01 Nov 2012
Assessment year(s)
1993-94
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ranchi Appellants In Both Cases v. Central Coalfields Ltd, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: JUSTICE JAYA ROY Dated 1st November, 2012 By CourtFor deciding the following questions of law, these appeals were admitted:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T was justified in law in treating part of Guest House expenditure as Revenue expenditure u/s 37(4) of...
Decision: Thus, these appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
Tax Appeal No. 17 of 2001
WithTax Appeal No. 18 of 2001
-----
In the matter of an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961
----- Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi Appellants in both cases
Vs.
Central Coalfields Ltd.
Respondent in both cases
-----
For the Appellant/Petitioner : M/s.D.Roshan, Sr.S.C (IT), R.KumariFor the Respondent : M/s.B.Poddar, Snr.Adv.,M.Choudhary D.Poddar, P.Poddar, A.Sinha
------
PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
Dated 1st November, 2012
By CourtFor deciding the following questions of law, these appeals were
admitted:-
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T was justified in law in treating part of Guest House expenditure as Revenue expenditure u/s 37(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 1993-94 and 1994-95?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in giving relief of Rs.1,27,42,000/- and Rs.1,40,12,000/- to the assessee in respect of claim of Guest House expenses for the Assessment year 1993-94 and 1994-95?
(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified deleting disallowances in respect to expenditure incurred on communitydevelopmentamountingto Rs.85,17,000/- and Rs.86,30,000/- for the Assessment Year 1993-94/1994-95 and disallowance under the head sports, recreation and Game expenses for the Assessment Year 1993-94/1994-95 amounting to Rs.23,82,000/- and Rs.25,02,000/- by holding that these expenses were Revenue expenses?
2.Learned counsel for the parties submit that question nos.1 and
2 stand answered in Tax Appeal No.14/1999R(Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs. M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd.) dated 13[th] June, 2012.3.In view of the above, question nos.1 and 2 are answered in the
light of the decision given in Tax Appeal No.14/1999R dated 13[th ]June, 2012.
4.So far as question no.3 is concerned, it is with respect to deletion of disallowances in respect of expenditure incurred on community development for the assessment year 1993-94/1994-95 under the head of expenditure for sports, recreation and Game expenses.
5.In view of the reasons given in two judgments of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. ([1978] 115 ITR 659 (Delhi)) and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ([1986] 158 ITR 64 (Delhi)), we are of the considered opinion that the issue has already been answered by the Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee and we are in full agreement withreasons given by Delhi High Court in the above two judgments. The question no.3 is answered in favour of the assessee. Thus, these appeals are dismissed.
(Prakash Tatia, C.J.)
(Jaya Roy, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, RanchiThe 1[st] November, 2012NAFR/dey
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.