Tax v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd., 249 Itr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2002The Commissioner of Income Tax,Mumbai City-1, Mumbai... Appellantv/s.The Associated Cement Co.Ltd... RespondentMr.Vijay Kantharia i/by Mr.H.D.Rathod forappellant. Mr.P.C.Tripathi for respondent. CORAM: R.M.LODHA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED:24thAugust, 2004 P.C. Heard Mr. Vijay Kantharia, the learnedcounsel for the revenue.2. In the memorandum of appeal, four substantialquestions of law have been proposed. The saidquestions read thus-(i)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, theTribunal was right in law inconfirming the order of the CIT(A)allowing the amount ofRs.39,68,802/- paid by the assesseeas additional gratuity to monthlypaid employees?(ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theTribunal was right in law inconfirming the order of the CIT(A)holding that the entire amount ofRs.97,07,511/- representingvoluntary retirement compensationwas an allowable deduction? (iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, theTribunal was right in law inconfirming the order of the CIT(A)in deleting the disallowance of theinterest on capital borrowed for setting up a new unit? (iv) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case theTribunal was right in law inconfirming the order of CIT(A)holding that the liability of theassessee to pay interest under section 215 cannot be considered to be a contingent liability? 3. In so far as proposed question Nos.(i) and(iii) are concerned, we find that the view taken bythe Tribunal is in conformity with the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd., 249 ITR 3. the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. No substantial question of law arises. Appeal is dismissed in limine. (R.M.LODHA, J.)