Itxa/198/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 Mumbai v. M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.198 OF 2009 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.198 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mrs.Vasanti Patel for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2009. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the respondent. Appeal seeks to raise the following questions of law :- A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was right in confirming CIT (A)’s order treating the amount realised on sale of additional quota of free sale sugar as capital receipt not liable to tax ? B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was right in confirming CIT (A)’s order deleting of the disallowance / addition made by AO in respect of provision for interest on excess levy sugar price and on sugar cane price / rate difference ? C) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was right in allowing deduction in respect of prior period expenses in computation of Book Profit for purpose of section 115JB ? D) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was right in holding that the interest u/s.234D cannot be charged in respect of refunds granted prior to 1/6/2003 ? 2. So far as the first question is concerned, similar question has already been rejected by the - = : 2 : = - Division Bench of this Court in the case of the assessee itself in Income Tax Appeal No.908 of 2008 {The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.} vide order dated 24th March, 2009. 3. So far as the second question is concerned, it is submitted that the earlier assessment order giving rise to the very same question, in the case of the assessee itself, has been accepted by the revenue. In this view of the matter, the second question can be hardly said to be a substantial question of law. 4. So far as the third question is concerned, the same is covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. V/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd. V/s.Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 255 I.T.R.273. Therefore, it can be hardly said to be a Commissioner of Income Tax 273 substantial question of law warranting adjudication by this Court. 5. So far as the last question is concerned, it is seen that the subject provision came on Statute book w.e.f. 1/6/2003. If that be so, the said provision does not have retrospective effect. In this view of the matter, we do not see appeal giving rise to any substantial question of law. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. - = : 3 : = - (V.C.DAGA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(V.C.DAGA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)