Itxa/342/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-6,Mumbai v. M/S.mahindra Ugine Steel Co.ltd.,Mumbai

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.342 OF 2009 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.342 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.J.S.Saluja for appellant. Mr.Arun Sathe, senior counsel with Kranti Sathe for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2009. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the respondent. The appeals seeks to raise the following questions of law:- 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the I.T.A.T. is justified in restoring the issue of payment of Rs.4 crores to Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. under a non complete convenant for examining whether the nature of payment is revenue or capital, especially when the Tribunal had already held that the said payment cannot be said to be on account of non competition meaning thereby that the said payment was for non business purpose and hence disallowable ? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TAT is justified in law and in holding that premium payable of Rs.6,86,212/- on debenture is an allowable expenditure even though the liability to pay such premium arises only at the time of redemption of debentures ? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in law and in allowing the total liability of Rs.26,56,000/- arising out of settlement dated 28/6/1995 with workers union even though this entire liability - = : 2 : = - neither pertained to relevant AY 1996-97 and nor was paid in AY 1996-97 ? 4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT are justified in law and in holding that unabsorbed depreciation should be set off against income from other sources even though as per the provision of section 32(2) of I.T. Act, unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income. ? 2. So far as the first question is concerned the matter has been remanded back to the CIT(A) for considering the matter afresh. We do not see any substantial question of law arise therefrom. 3. So far as the second question is concerned, the same is converned by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Madras Industrial InvestmentCorporation Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax225 I.T.R. 802. Corporation Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 225 I.T.R. 802 4. So far as the as third and fourth questions are concerned, they are covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Commissioner ofIncome Tax V/s. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mill Pvt.Ltd. reported in 53 ITR 134 and Commissioner ofIncome Tax V/s. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.216 I.T.R. 607 respectively. In the Income Tax V/s. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax V/s. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 216 I.T.R. 607 aforesaid view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise. 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.)