Itxa/1440/2011 Of The Commisioner Of Income Tax- 1 Mumbai v. Hindustan Level Ltd

kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1440 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax.-Versus-Hindustan Lever Ltd.. ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr.Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant/ Revenue.Mr.Rajesh Poojary i/by Mulla & Mulla, for the Respondent/ Assessee. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND GIRISH S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE :- 17[th] April, 2014 P.C.: 1When this Appeal was placed before us today, Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/ Revenue and Mr.Poojary, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/ Assessee, have fairly brought to our notice our order dated 01.04.2014 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.5794/2010. 2Upon perusal of the order passed on 01.04.2014 and the order under challenge in the present Appeal, we have noted that the questions of law raised at page 5 and A to D, are covered by our order dated 01.04.2014 in Income Tax Appeal No.5794/2010. 3As far as the question of law in the present Appeal, namely, (A) is concerned, that is covered by our discussion and findings with regard to question (1) in the order dated 01.04.2014. As far as question (B) is concerned, that is covered by our discussion and findings on the question (3) in the order dated 01.04.2014. As far as question (C) is concerned, that stands covered by our discussion and findings on question (5) raised in Income Tax Appeal No.5794/2010 and decided on 01.04.2014. Equally, paragraph 9 of the order passed on 01.04.2014 decides the question (D) which is raised in the present Appeal. 4In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the present Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. All issues and questions are concluded by our order dated 01.04.2014. 5Mr.Suresh Kumar then submits that the Appeal survives insofar as the question (E) is concerned. In that regard, we have perused the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and which is impugned in the present Appeal. We have noted that the ITAT has referred to the order of the Assessing Officer and equally that of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The discussion in that regard is to be found at page 231 of the paper book and paragraphs 44 to 47 of the order of the ITAT. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the Appeal in part and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The ITAT noted the rival contentions and held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer needs to be restored so far as it relates to deduction under Section 80-I. The deduction under Section 80-HH will have to be abide by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has remanded the Appeal only insofar as the claim under Section 80-HH is concerned. That is upheld by the ITAT. The remand is necessitated in the given facts and circumstances. The view taken and conclusion reached, namely, of remand and for limited purpose, therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law. The view taken by the ITAT is possible and in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6As a result of the above discussion, this Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (GIRISH S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)