Ita/204/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kottayam v. M/S.hindustan Newsprint Ltd.,Kottayam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 ITA.No. 204 of 2002() --------------------- AGAINST ORDER DATED 31/01/2002 IN ITA.44/COCH/1998 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT / APPELLANT ------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENT ------------------------ M/S.HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR P.O., KOTTAYAM ADV. SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A :COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/01/1997.ANNEXURE-B :COPY OF CIT(A)'S ORDER DATED 30/07/1999.ANNEXURE-C :COPY OF ITAT'S ORDER DATED 31/01/2002. //TRUE COPY// jg PA TO JUDGE. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.....................................................................I.T.A.No.204 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2.Two questions have been raised for our decision, one pertaining to disallowance of guest house expenditureand other pertaining to disallowance of business expenditureclaimed towards penalty paid to the Forest Department. 3.After hearing both sides, we do not find any merit inthe appellant's case because both the appellate authoritiescame to the conclusion that the penalty paid, which was at therate of Rs.50/- per metric tonnes for belated collection offorest woods, which is the raw material for the respondentCompany, is compensatory in nature. So far as the guesthouse expenditure is concerned, the issue is covered againstthe Department by our decision in ITA No.168/2001 relating I.T.A.No.204/2002 to the same assessee, wherein we have considered the peculiar features and location of the respondent Company, which is aPublic Sector Company under the control of the CentralGovernment. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the I.T.Appeal andthe same is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg