Nma/40/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai v. M/S. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.40 OF 2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL(L) NO.2923 OF 2008 The CIT-2, Mumbai )..Appellant V/s. M/s.Ravalgao Sugar Farm Ltd.Mumbai)..Respondents ---- Mr.Vimal Gupta @ P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.B.V.Jhaveri with Priti V.Shukla for respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 10.2.2009. PC 1. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2923 OF 2008 1. Heard forthwith. Revenue has come in appeal in respect of the following three questions:- (A) "Whether on the facts on in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in allowing the claim of interest and depreciation of assets taken on lease ? (B) " Whether on the facts on in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in holding the subsidy received as capital receipt despite no such claim of deduction is permissible otherwise than by way of filing revised return ? : 2 : (C) " Whether on the facts on in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in holding the payments made club as business expenditure despite the said payments is not exclusively for the business purpose ? 2. In so far as question no.(A) is concerned, the learned Tribunal in paragraph-4 of its order noted that for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 in the assessee’s own case an identical issue was examined by the Tribunal and the Tribunal held these transactios to be lease transactions. These are trasactions relating to plant and machineries. Once the revenue has accepted the findings for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95, it is not possible in respect of the same or similar plant & machineries, to take a different view. In our opinion, therefore, question (A) as framed would not arise. 3. In so far as question (B) is concerned, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of CIT(A). The issue pertains to taking on record additional evidence. CIT (A) subsequetly by its order, remanded the matter and passed an order in respect of which the assessee is before the Tribunal. In our opinion, therefore, question (B) also would not arise. 4. In so far as question (C) is concerned, : 3 : cosidering that the appeal is in respect of assessment year 1995-96, the question as framed would not arise for the said assessment year. In the light of that, the said question also would not arise. 5. Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)