The Above Appeal Filed By The Appellant/Revenue Challenging v. Txa/69/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2015 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI. VersusSALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., ... Appellant ... Respondent Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate for the appellant.Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate with Advocate Shri Ashwin D.Bhobe for the respondent. -Coram:F. M. REIS &NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.-Date:2nd May, 2016 P.C. Heard Ms. Asha Desai, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-Revenu and Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal filed by the appellant/Revenue challenging the order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT),deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.10,94,885/- under Section 14 A, read with Rule 8D of the IncomeTax Act. The challenge is also to the deletion of the additions ofRs.48,60,08,180/-relating to capital expenditure incurred on majordry-docking expenses for ships which substantially extend the life ofthe ships by taking into consideration the Judgment reported in (SC)293 ITR 2011 in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Saravana Spinning Mill Pvt. Ltd.. 3. During the course of hearing of the above appeal, it was notdisputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that asfar as similar expenditure referred to in the second contention, forthe assessment year 2008-2009 which is the previous assessmentyear, the authorities have taken a view that such expenditure isrevenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. Hence, for thereasons stated in the order passed today in Income Tax Appeal No.70of 2015 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji Vs. SalgaocarMining Industries Pvt. Ltd.) for the assessment year 2008-2009, wefind that the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below to theeffect that such expenditure is revenue expenditure cannot bere-appreciated in the present appeal under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, as there is no perversity in such findings. Hence, thesecond substantial question law would not arise in the present appeal. 4. As far as the first proposed substantial question of law isconcerned, we find on perusal of the order passed by the ITAT thatthere is a categorical finding therein that the Revenue-Appellantherein was unable to point out that the calculations carried out by theCommissioner of Income Tax (A) towards deduction in terms ofSection 14A, read with Section 8D of the said Act are incorrect. Shri Pardiwalla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for therespondent pointed out that the dis-allowance of Rs.10,94,885/- was the addition by the A.O. of the interest which was notexpenditure incurred in connection with the subject dividend on shares which were allotted in a family settlement in respect of thecompany known as "Tungabhadra Minerals Private Limited". Thelearned Tribunal has noted that the DR could not bring any evidencebefore the learned Tribunal to show that the calculations of thelearned CIT(A) are not as per Rules. Therefore, the learned Tribunalhad no other alternative than to endorse the action by the CIT(A). Infact, the CIT(A) held that the Assessee had not paid any interest onacquiring investments and consequently, the learned CIT(A) hasrestricted this disallowance to Rs.5,10,283/-. The learned Tribunal,as such, found that the CIT(A) is justified in such action andconsequently, held that there was no fault committed by the CIT(A)while coming to such conclusion. As such, we find that there is nosubstantial question of law, on this count, which arise in the presentappeal. No fault has been pointed out by the learned Counselappearing for the appellant-Revenue to such conclusion. Therefore,the substantial question of law, as proposed by the appellant-Revenuewould not arise in the present appeal. 5. Hence, there are no substantial questions of law which arise inthe present appeal. The appeal stands, accordingly, dismissed. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. mukund F. M. REIS, J.