Tax, Bombay City-I v. Dismissed As Withdrawn With Liberty As Prayed For

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH he h LTR. No.600 of 1995| Date of Decision: 21.03.2016 The Commissioner of Income-tax, PatialaVs,M/s Punjab Tractors Ltd., Mohali .... Petitioner....ReSpondent COQORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK AJAY KUMAR MITTHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG Present:-Mr. Z.S. Kalar, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for the respondent, oK O AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) The present reference at the instance of the revenue has beenfiled for the Assessment Year 1984-85. The reference has been sent to thisCourt by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.6.1995, to seek opinion of thisCourt on the following questions of law:- “)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law in giving directions to the AssessingOfficer to exclude the amount of repairs of cars out of theestimated disallowance of —Rs.2,00,000/- made by theAssessing Officer on account of running and maintenance ofcars which includes expenses on repairs also? (11) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law 1n deleting the 50% of the addition madeby the Assessing Officer on account of business luncheonexpenses without any basis? (111)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law in allowing expenditure of Rs.5,20,000/-incurred on the issue of debentures as revenue expenditure ofthe assessee?ITAT was right in law in allowing expenditure of Rs.5,20,000/-incurred on the issue of debentures as revenue expenditure ofthe assessee? (iv)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law to delete the addition of Rs.75,000/-made on account of rent paid to PSIDC for the guest housewhich fact also confirmed by the first appellate authority,holding that the payment of rent 1s covered u/s 30 and 1s not hitby the provisions of section 37(4) read with section 37(5)?ITAT was right in law to delete the addition of Rs.75,000/-made on account of rent paid to PSIDC for the guest housewhich fact also confirmed by the first appellate authority,holding that the payment of rent 1s covered u/s 30 and 1s not hitby the provisions of section 37(4) read with section 37(5)? (v)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) indeleting disallowance made u/s 40A(5)?ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) indeleting disallowance made u/s 40A(5)? (v1)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theITAT erred in directing the Assessing Officer to excludeliabilities on pro-rata basis in respect of Tractor Division andFoundry Unit for computing capital employed in the NewUnit?’ITAT erred in directing the Assessing Officer to excludeliabilities on pro-rata basis in respect of Tractor Division andFoundry Unit for computing capital employed in the NewUnit?’ |Learned counsel for the revenue very fairly submitted that theperusal of the case shows that the Assessing Officer made an assessment ontotal income of|=20,52,520/- u/s 143(3) vide order dated 18.2.1988 and thetax effect involved in the present reference is less than the monetary limitprescribed in the circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 issued by theCBDT, New Delhi. LTR. No.600 of 1995| 3)On the basis of the judgment of the Bombay High Courtrendered 1n_ITR No.213 of 1997,titled asThe Commissioner of Income |Learned counsel for the revenue very fairly submitted that theperusal of the case shows that the Assessing Officer made an assessment ontotal income of|=20,52,520/- u/s 143(3) vide order dated 18.2.1988 and thetax effect involved in the present reference is less than the monetary limitprescribed in the circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 issued by theCBDT, New Delhi. LTR. No.600 of 1995| 3)On the basis of the judgment of the Bombay High Courtrendered 1n_ITR No.213 of 1997,titled asThe Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-I Vs. M/s Sunny Sounds P. Ltd., Mumbai, decided on=[th]January, 2016,wherein, it has been held that the Circular No.21/2015,dated 10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi 1s also applicable tothe pending reference in the High Courts, learned counsel for the revenuemade a prayer that in view of the aforesaid circular dated 10[th]December,2015, as the tax effect involved in the present case is less than the monetarylimit prescribed therein, the present reference may be dismissed aswithdrawn and be returned unanswered. However, it was submitted thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of thereference 1n case something survives therein. 4Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 4 Consequently, reference is returned unanswered. However, this shallnot mean any expression of opinion on the merits of the controversyinvolved herein. At the same time, the question of law has been left open to}be adjudicated in an appropriate case as and when occasion arises. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE March 21, 2016 | renu ( RAJ RAHUL GARG )JUDGE