Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S. Reliance Home Store Ltd

Pradnya Bhogale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1538 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. ..Appellant M/s. Reliance Home Store Ltd. ..Respondent …........ Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant. Mr. P.C. Tripathi I/b. Mr. Raj Darak for Respondent. …........ CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &M.S.KARNIK, JJ. P.C.:- DATE : 8 JANUARY 2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.The Appeal pertains to the Assessment Year2010-2011. 3.The learned counsel for the Respondent has handedover copies of the decisions rendered in the Respondent-Assessee’sown case for other assessment years wherein the questions of lawraised in the present Appeal have been considered by this Court. 4.In this Appeal the Appellant-Revenue has raised thefollowing questions as substantial questions of law :- (A)“Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the caseand in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in deletingdisallowance in respect to expenses incurred in thepreoperative period towards the project development cost,the assessee had treated the same expenditure as revenue forI.T. purposes whereas for all other purposes and laws it hastreated the expenditure as capital expenditure ? (B)“Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the caseand in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in allowingthe expenses incurred u/s. 37(1) of the Act withoutappreciating that admittedly and also as accounted byassessee in its books of account, the expenses werepreoperative in nature and hence not admissible asexpenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act thereby allowing theassessee undue benefit and inadmissible benefit u/s. 37(1)of the Act, giving rise to a substantial question of law asenvisaged by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofVijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT in 330 ITR (1)(SC) ?” 5.As regards the first question of law regarding theproject development cost to be treated as capital expenditure orrevenue, the said question was considered in Income Tax AppealNo.892 of 2014 and Income Tax Appeal No.948 of 2014 and byorder dated 5 July, 2017 the same has been held against theAppellant-Revenue. 6.As regards the second question raised, it wasconsidered and held against the Appellant-Revenue in Income TaxAppeal No.197 of 2017. 43. itxa 1538-17.doc 7.In the circumstances, no substantial question of lawarises in this Appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)