Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S A.r. Industries (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.68 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.4.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/s A.R. Industries (P) Ltd. -----Appellant. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney , Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant. ---for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NewDelhi dated 2.7.2010 in ITA No.1893(Del)/2010 for theassessment year 2001-02 claiming following substantialquestions of law:- “I.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law inupholding the order of the CIT(A) in allowingdeduction of Rs.19,65,000/- claimed by theassessee on account of development chargesfor the product development as revenueexpenditure by relying on Tribunal’s order for theof the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law inupholding the order of the CIT(A) in allowingdeduction of Rs.19,65,000/- claimed by theassessee on account of development chargesfor the product development as revenueexpenditure by relying on Tribunal’s order for the (ii) Asstt. Year 2000-01 dated 03-05-2005 inassessee’s case against which revenue’sappeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Courtand without giving any reasons for his own?Whether, on the facts ad in the circumstances ofthe case, the Ld. ITAT has committee illegalityby failing to consider all material facts andevidence brought on record and further failed torecord the finding on the issue of allowingdeduction of Rs.19,65,000/- claimed by theassessee on account of development chargeseven though it was obligatory on the part of theITAT to decide the matter being the finalauthority of facts and not merely by follow theprecedents without any discussion?” Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that thematter is covered against the revenue by earlier order of thisCourt dated 1.12.2010 in I.T.A. No.272 of 2006 inCIT v. M/sA.R. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 27, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE