Ita/255/2020 Of The Pr Commissioner Of Income-Tax Cit(A) v. M/S Abb Ltd

Digitallysigned byBHARATHI SLocation:HIGH COURTOFKARNATAKA NC: 2024:KHC:39247-DBITA No. 255 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIT(A) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560095. INCOME-TAX CIT(A) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560095. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-8(1) MUMBAI PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1) 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y V .,ADVOCATE) AND: M/S ABB LTD., (FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD.,) KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD 2ND FLOOR, EAST WING BENGALURU-560001. PAN:AAACA 3834B ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA No.3240/MUM/2004 DATED 18.03.2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 ANNEXURE-C CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Raviraj Y.V. for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA No.3240/MUM/2004 for the assessment year 2000-01, raising the following substantial questions of law: - 3 - ITA No. 255 of 2020 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right holding that the expenditure on Interior, cabling wire work, Civil work, Water Proofing, entrance canopy, IT babbling, Blinds, Civil and Plumbing, carpet laying work stations, Interior Work, and electric work were of Revenue nature just on the basis of the item description furnished by the assessee and not examining the detailed nature and purpose of work? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature as Tribunal has held that assessing authority had not treated expenditure as Capital in nature whereas assessing authority had clearly held that the expenditure was of enduring nature and could not be of current repairs? 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the - 4 - instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS