Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. M/S Modern Threads (India) Ltd., A

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 285/2018 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus M/s Modern Threads (India) Ltd., A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar,Jaipur. Pan- AABCM 1850 A ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 266/2018 Modern Syntex (India) Limited, A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar,Jaipur ----AppellantVersus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 267/2018 Modern Syntex (India) Limited, A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar,Jaipur. ----AppellantVersus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 270/2018Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus M/s Modern Denim Ltd., A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur(Rajasthan). ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 286/2018Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur. ----Appellant M/s Modern Denim Ltd., A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 295/2018 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur - II Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Modern Denim Ltd., A-4 Vijay Path Tilak Nagar Jaipur(Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Shri Prateek Kedavat on behalf of ShriR.B. Mathur for RevenueFor Respondent(s): Shri Sunil Nath for assessee HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 04/10/2019 Judgment (PER HON’BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.) The appeal nos.270/18, 285/18, 286/18 and 295/18 havebeen filed by the revenue against the judgement of Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal remitted the issue to therecord of the Assessing Officer for limited purpose of verification ofthe fact as to the nature of loan taken by the assessee, which waswaived off by the bank/financial institutions under one timesettlement and written back by the assessee during theassessment year. The appeal nos.266/18 and 267/18 have been filed byassessee against the judgement of the Tribunal, which remittedthe matter back to the CIT(A) by relying on certain judgements,whereas CIT(A) on consideration of the judgement of this Court in the own case of the assesee dated 26.4.2017 deleted the additionmade by the Assessing Officer treating the remission of liability onaccount of waiver from bank/financial institutions and adding thesame back to the total income of the assessee. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that thesubstantial questions of law involved in this matter are squarelycovered by the judgement of this Court in Modern Demin Ltd. vs.Assistant Commissioner of I.T., Jaipur, D.B. Income Tax AppealNo.145/2010 and other 4 connected matters dated 26.4.2017where the substantial question of law was whether the remissionof principal amount of loan obtained from financial institutions andbanks constitutes a benefit or pre-requisite arising from businessand would fall within the ambit of Section 28(iv) of the Act. This Court in the aforesaid judgement while allowing theappeals filed by the assessee reversed the judgement of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal and restored the view taken by theCIT(A) following the judgement of Bombay High Court in Mahindraand Mahindra Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax andCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.-(2003) 261 ITR 501 (Bom), which held that income which can betaxed under Section 28(iv) must not only be referable to a benefitor perquisite, but it must be arising from business and thatSection 28(iv) does not apply to benefits in cash or money. This Court in the aforesaid judgement while allowing theappeals filed by the assessee reversed the judgement of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal and restored the view taken by theCIT(A) following the judgement of Bombay High Court in Mahindraand Mahindra Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax andCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.-(2003) 261 ITR 501 (Bom), which held that income which can betaxed under Section 28(iv) must not only be referable to a benefitor perquisite, but it must be arising from business and thatSection 28(iv) does not apply to benefits in cash or money. It is also not disputed that judgement of the Bombay HighCourt was upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissing the CivilAppeal No.6949-6950 of 2004, the Commissioner vs. Mahindraand Mahindra Ltd. through M.D. and other connected appeals byjudgement dated 24.4.2018. Even the SLPs filed against thejudgement of this Court in M/s. Modern Threads (I) Ltd., supra were also disposed of in view of judgement of Mahindra andMahindra Ltd., supra dated 24.4.2018. In view of above, while the appeal nos. 266/18 and 267/18preferred by the assessee are allowed, the appeal nos.270/18,285/18, 286/18 and 295/18 filed by the revenue are dismissed. Office to place a copy of this order in each connected matter. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),Acting CJ RAVI SHARMA /40-45