In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. Kochi Refineries Ltd.(Now Merged Withbharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in allowing the expenses claimed by the assessee on feasibility studies by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's case for A.Y.
Decision: 3)The appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.2019 OF 2012
The Commissioner of Income Tax-2.
v.
Kochi Refineries Ltd.(now merged withBharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.)
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Girish Dave with Mr. A.K.Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 1st March, 2013
PC:
In this appeal for assessment year 2000-01 the revenue has raised following question of law for our consideration.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in allowing the expenses claimed by the assessee on feasibility studies by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's case for A.Y. 1994-95 to 1998-99 ignoring that the expenditure was not related to the study on various aspects of operations carried out by the assessee company i.e. beginning from the purchase of crude oil till the disposal of the petroleum products, and the department has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal in earlier years and appeal u/s. 260A has been filed before the Kerala High Court?
2)
We have today by our order answered in an identical
question raised in the respondent-assessee's case by the revenue in Income Tax Appeal Lodging No.2018 of 2012 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. For the reasons mentioned in our order passed today in Income Tax Appeal Lodging No.2018 of 2012, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law.
3)The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.