Insofar As The Question v. Commissioner Ofincome-Tax [225 Itr 792

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/4TH ASWINA, 1939 ITR.No. 3 of 2001 ---------------------- ORDER IN ITA NO.415/COCH/91 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH -------- APPLICANT: ------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXKARNATAKA-III, BANGALORE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) RESPONDENT: ---------------- M/S FSI DATA SYSTEMS LTD.,BANGALORE. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.KIRAN BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) THIS INCOME TAX REFERENCE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ I. T. R. No.3 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th ]day of September, 2017 ORDER Antony Dominic, J. 1. aHeard the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenueand the learned counsel for the respondent assessee.and the learned counsel for the respondent assessee. 2. In this reference under the Income Tax Act, the twoquestions that are referred for the opinion of this Court readas under: "1.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in law in holdingthat the expenditure incurred in connection withthe issue of equity shares is allowable asrevenue expenditure?case, the Tribunal was right in law in holdingthat the expenditure incurred in connection withthe issue of equity shares is allowable asrevenue expenditure? 2.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was correct in law in holdingthat the items manufactured by the assessee didnot fall within item No.22 of the EleventhSchedule to the Income Tax Act as it stoodduring the relevant time, and so the assessee isentitled for deduction u/s 32AB?”case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holdingthat the items manufactured by the assessee didnot fall within item No.22 of the EleventhSchedule to the Income Tax Act as it stoodduring the relevant time, and so the assessee isentitled for deduction u/s 32AB?” I. T. R. No.3 of 2001 3. Insofar as the question No.1 is concerned, that hasto be answered against the assessee and in favour of theRevenue in view of the principles laid down by the ApexCourt in its judgment in Punjab State IndustrialDevelopment Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner ofIncome-Tax [225 ITR 792]. 4. The second question with regard to the entitlementof the assessee for deduction under Section 32AB, isconcerned, a reading of the order of the Tribunal itself wouldshow that, concerning the Assessment Year 1986-87, asimilar claim made by the assessee was upheld by theTribunal in its order in ITA No.398/1991 dated 11.04.1995.It was following this order of the Tribunal that the issue hasbeen decided in favour of the assessee. 5. Having regard to the fact that the aforesaid order ofthe Tribunal has been accepted by the Revenue and hasattained finality, we are not persuaded to take a differentview in the matter. Therefore, the second question is I. T. R. No.3 of 2001 -3- answered in favour of the assessee. Answering the questions of law as aforesaid, thisreference is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE