The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai v. M/S.national Organic Chemical Industries Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.733 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.National Organic Chemical Industries Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr.Ajit Shah with Mr.Srihari Iyer for the respondent. P.C. : CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 5[th] November 2012 1. Two questions of law are raised by the Revenue in this appeal, which reads thus : a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that there is no direct nexus between the borrowed funds and investments made by the assessee company and thereby directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under Section 80M without reducing interest attributable to the earning of dividend ?the Tribunal was justified in holding that there is no direct nexus between the borrowed funds and investments made by the assessee company and thereby directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under Section 80M without reducing interest attributable to the earning of dividend ? b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing the expenditure of Rs.45,77,014/- as revenue expenditure being expenses incidental to the assessment / feasibility of project which was abandoned subsequently even though such expenditure was clearly capital in nature ?the Tribunal was justified in allowing the expenditure of Rs.45,77,014/- as revenue expenditure being expenses incidental to the assessment / feasibility of project which was abandoned subsequently even though such expenditure was clearly capital in nature ? 2.Counsel for the parties state that similar questions raised by the Revenue in the assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No.4029 of 2010 for assessment year 1992-1993 has been dismissed on 21[st] July 2011. 3.In this view of the matter, the present appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)