Ita/274/2013 Of M/S Apollo Tyres Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMASFRIDAY, THE 30 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943 ITA NO. 274 OF 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 74/2010 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH,ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: M/S APOLLO TYRES LTD.6TH FLOOR, CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDINGS, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, KOCHI - 31. (PAN NO: ) BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOSSRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOSSRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKANSRI.BINU MATHEWSRI.TOM THOMAS KAKKUZHIYIL RESPONDENT/S: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 1(1), RANGE 0 1, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 30.07.2021,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T S.V.Bhatti, J. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joseph Markos and learned Standing Counsel Mr. Christopher Abraham for parties.2. M/s.Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi/Assessee is theappellant. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue isthe respondent. The subject appeal is at the instance ofAssessee from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (forshort ‘the Tribunal') Cochin Bench in ITA No.74/Coch/2010dated 29.05.2013. The controversies relate to the AssessmentYear 2006-07. The appeal deals with the questions ofdisallowance made by the Tribunal of the expenditure incurredby the assessee towards club expenses and disallowance of partof depreciation of Gurgaon building. I.T.A. No.274/2013 2.1The substantial questions read as follows: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe Tribunal is justified in law and on facts in sustaining thedisallowance of part depreciation of Gurgaon office buildingaggregating to 18,93,581/- in relation to let out portion toApollo International Ltd. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.the Tribunal is justified in law and on facts in sustaining thedisallowance of part depreciation ignoring the fact that conceptof block of assets had been inserted in the Act and individualitems included in the block are not to be considered separatelyfor the purposes of granting depreciation. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theTribunal is justified in law and on facts in restoring the issue ofdeduction of club expenses of 50,09,299/- to the AO for fresh₹determination in the light of its order for assessment year2005-06.” 3.The assessee, raising similar questions of law, filed ITA No.26/2013 for the Assessment Year 2003-04. By a separate order the appeal has been dismissed. The reasons stated in ITANo.26/2013 are adopted while considering and disposing of the substantial questions framed in this appeal as well. Hence, the questions are answered in favour of theRevenue and against the assessee. Appeal fails, dismissedaccordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- S.V.BHATTIJUDGESd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMASJUDGE jjj I.T.A. No.274/2013 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A ANNEXURE B ANNEXURE C APPENDIX OF ITA 274/2013 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19/12/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30/11/2009 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)II, KOCHI. TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29/05/2013 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI BENCH.