D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Gilleette India Ltd., 65-A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 644 / 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar. ----Appellant Versus Gilleette India Ltd., 65-A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain with Mr. Mukesh MeenaFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Mr. Prakul Khurana & Ms. Archana _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHURJudgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri, J. 23/05/2017 1.The department has moved an application (6636/2015) forframing additional substantial questions of law. 1.2We have gone though the application. 1.3The application was moved after the matter was admitted.Even otherwise, the questions which are sought to be framed areappreciation of facts and no substantial question of law is made out. 1.4Therefore, the application stands disposed of. 2.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal haspartly allowed the appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue. 3.This Court while admitting the appeal on 29.10.2014 hasframed the following substantial questions of law: “(i)Whether the Tribunal was legallyjustified in deleting the addition ofRs.76,93,146/- confirmed by the CIT(A) onaccount of bad debts which were notproved according to Section 36(1)(vii) and36(2)? (ii)Whether the Tribunal was legallyjustified in allowing the depreciation u/s 32for Rs.10,64,622/- disallowed by theCIT(A) claimed on the vehicles owned bythe employees?” 4.The issue No.(i) is squarely covered by the decision ofSupreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] 323 ITR 397 which was followed by thisCourt in the case of assessee itself in the case of Thecommissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Gillette India Ltd. inDB Income Tax Appeal No.65/2008, decided on 03.05.2017and this Court in para 6 has observed as under: “6.The issues No.3 & 4 are covered bythe decision of Supreme Court in the case ofT.R.F. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax (2010) 323 ITR 397. The issue No.5on facts is covered by the decision of thisCourt in the case of Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs. Dr. A.M. Singhi (2008)302 ITR 26 (RAJ) and in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax vs. LakePalace Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd.(2002) 258 ITR 526 (RAJ).” 5.Hence, the issue No.(i) is decided in favour of the assesseeand against the department. 6.In so far as the issue No.(ii) is concerned, the Tribunal in para 2 and para 9.4 has held as under: “2.The AO in assessment order hasreferred to five vehicles, which according tohim are not registered in the name of thecompany. This finding of AO is incorrect. Allthese vehicles are registered in the name ofthe company as per the registered certificateplaced at PB No.505-512. Thus AO haswrongly disallowed the claim of depreciationon the basis of his observation in respectthese five vehicles. In respect of all thesefive vehicles the certificate of registration isin the name of the company. 9.4We have heard both the parties. Inview of the facts submitted before us andconsidering that the company is owner ofvehicles and hence the assessee company isentitled to depreciation.” 7.In that view of the matter, this issue is also decided in favour of the assessee and against the department. 8.Therefore, both the issues are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 9.The appeal stands dismissed. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/189