Nma/41/2009 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.41 OF 2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2924 OF 2008 The CIT-2, Mumbai )..Appellant V/s. M/s.Ravalgaon 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.2924 OF 2008 1. Appeal raises following 3 questions of law :- (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 ? (C) "Whether on the facts on in the circumstances of : 2 : 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. Question (A) is similar to what was an issue in question (A) in Income Tax Appeal (L) NO.2923 of 2008. For the reasons set out therein, question (A) in this appeal also would not arise. 3. In so far as question (B) is concerned, the same was similar to question (B) in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.2923 of 2008. For the reasons set out therein, the question as framed also would not arise. 4. In so far as question (C) is concerned, issue pertains to payment of club fees. On the facts here, in our opinion, issue is covered by the judgment of this Court reported in 195 ITR 682. Considering the above, the appeal stands dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)