Sarang v. Kotwal, J.) (Akil Kureshi, J.)…

Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.396 OF 2017 WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.397 OF 2017 The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-14… Appellant V/s. M/s Indian Seamless Steels and Alloys Ltd.… Respondent --- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.Nishant Thakkar with Miss Jasmin Amalsadvala i/by M/s PDSLegal for the Respondent. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND SARANG V.KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : APRIL 30, 2019. P.C.:- 1.These appeals are filed by the revenue. Common facts arise in these appeals. We may notice facts from Appeal No. 396 of2017. 2. Following question has been presented by the revenue forour consideration:- “Whether on the facts and circumstance of the caseand in law, the Tribunal was correct in allowing theexpenditure of Rs.26,30,65,934/- incurred on DSRMtrial run as revenue expenditure without appreciating the fact that the expenditure has beenincurred before commissioning?” 3.The respondent-assessee is a limited company. The issuearises out of the return of income by the assessee for theassessment year 1997-98. The Assessing Officer had disallowedcertain expenditure treating as pre-operative expenditure. CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee comingto the conclusion that the assessee was not starting a newbusiness. The assessee was already engaged in the same line offorging business since financial year 1993-94. The assessee hadinstalled new machinery for better management of the business.The assessee had thus employed improved technique forproduction as the part of existing business. These finding of factsare not seriously controverted by the revenue. Concurrent findingsof the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal thus are the assessee hadincurred expenditure not for starting of new business, but forimproving output in the existing business. No question of lawarises. Income Tax Appeals are dismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)….