The C.i.t. Mumbai City-Ii v. The Andhra Valley Power Supply
High Court
29 Jan 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The C.i.t. Mumbai City-Ii v. The Andhra Valley Power Supply
Date of order
29 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The C.i.t. Mumbai City-Ii v. The Andhra Valley Power Supply, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Issue: Admit on the following questions:- 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowances u/s.37(4) of the I.T.Act on account of Guest House expenses?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
(-1-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.43 OF 2001
The C.I.T. Mumbai City-II....Appellant
Vs.
The Andhra Valley Power Supply
Co. Ltd.....................Respondent
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant
Mr.P.C.Tripati with Mr. Dinesh Vyas for the
Respondent
CORAM: F.I.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE,JJ.DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008
R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008
P.C.:
P.C.:
. Admit on the following questions:-
1. "Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
justified in law in deleting the
disallowances u/s.37(4) of the I.T.Act on
account of Guest House expenses?
2. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
justified in law in deleting the
disallowances made on account of Ash
Disposal Expenses as Capital Expenditure?"
2. In so far as the question of law is
(-2-)
concerned, the various expenses under the head
"Guest House Expenses" are set out as under;-
a) Rates & Taxes Rs.29,260/-
b) Repairs Rs.1,10,440/-
c) Insurance Rs.6,000/-
d) Bonus Rs.6,102/-
3. Learned Counsel agree that in so far as
Items (a), (b) and (c) are concerned they are
covered in favour of Revenue by the judgment of this
Court in 278 ITR 546.
4. In so far as Item (d) Bonus is concerned, it
is submitted that the issue is still open.
5. In so far as question of law No.2 is
concerned, a similar issue had come up for
consideration before this Court in Income Tax Appeal
No.72 of 1999 in The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai vs. The Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co.
Ltd., Mumbai which was disposed of on December 7,
1999. In that matter this Court did not interfere
with the findings recorded by the ITAT. Considering
the same in our opinion, in so far as Question No.2
(-3-)
as framed will not arise.
6. The amount of bonus as mentioned earlier is
in a sum of Rs.6,102/-. That issue can be left open
for consideration in appropriate case as even
otherwise the tax incidence in so far as this issue
is concerned is less than Rs.4.00 lakhs.
7. The question of law No.1, therefore, in so
far as Guest House expenses to the extent of rates
and taxes, repairs and insurance are answered in
favour of the Revenue. Appeal disposed of
accordingly.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.