The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2,Mumbai v. Raymond Ltd

srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1556 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2,Mumbai ...Appellant Versus Raymond Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr.Percy J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mohan Salian, Ms.Vaijayanta Shete and Mr.Jainuddin Khan i/b. Gagrats for respondents. CORAM: DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. March 20, 2012. P.C. 1.This appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 1 May 2009 relates to AY 2001-02. The following questions of law have been raised: (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of prior period expenditure under Section 115JB without appreciating that the expenditure was not on account of ascertained liability of the relevant assessment year? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by way of adjustment under Section 115JB on account of debenture redemption reserve, without appreciating that the provision was not for an ascertained liability. 2. Question (a) is it is common ground, covered against the Revenue by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax[1]. As regards question (b), the counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and the counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee state that the issue would stand covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the judgment rendered today in companion Income Tax Appeal No.1324 of 2010. Consequently and for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal would not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)