Itxa/2420/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax V v. Kinetic Motors Co Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2420 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, PuneV/s.Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd., Pune ..Appellant...Respondent. Mr. N. N. Singh, for the Appellant.Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, for the Respondent. CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 5[th] MARCH, 2013. P.C:- Heard. 2In this Appeal by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2004-05, following questions have been raised for our consideration. 3 (1)Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.88,38,179/- on account of royalty paid to Honda Motors Corporation Japan? (2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the matter related to disallowance of warranty provision of Rs.1,45,00,000/- wrongly mentioned at Rs.90,00,000/- in the Tribunal order, to the file of Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh? So far as Question (1) is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that an identical issue was raised by the Revenue in Respondent-Assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.937 of 2008. This Court by an order dated 8[th] February, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.937 of 2008 refused to entertain an identical question as raised herein in Question (1). In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (1). 4So far as Question (2) is concerned, the Tribunal by impugned order has remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh on the basis of the guide lines contained in the order of the Tribunal bearing No.148/PN/06 for the Assessment Year 2002-03. There is nothing on record to indicate that an Appeal has been filed by the Revenue in respect of the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2002-03. Further, the Revenue is not able to establish any distinguishing features in the present case warranting a different view from the one taken for the Assessment Year 2002-03, nor is any submission made to point out why the directions contained in the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2002-03 are not proper in law giving rise to a substantial question of law. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain question (2).5Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)