The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S.essar Steel Ltd

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2595 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-5 … Appellant v/s M/s.Essar Steel Ltd. … Respondent Ms.S.V. Bharucha for the appellant. Mr.A.K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2014 P. C. : 1This appeal challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25[th] February, 2011. The assessment year in question is 1995-1996. 2The appeals of the revenue and the assessee have been disposed of by this common order. In delivering this common order, the Tribunal has, particularly, in relation to the questions of law raised in the appeal and considering that in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the order under challenge, followed the exercise undertaken in the previous assessment year. The order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No.807/MDS/1999 upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was challenged before this Court by the revenue. In fact, Income Tax Appeal No.51 of 2011 challenging that order has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 20[th] November, 2012. One of the questions in the order of the Division Bench, namely, question (b) and in the present appeal, is identical. The counsel, therefore, agree that in view of the order dated 20[th] November, 2012, the question of law at internal para 6.1 of the present appeal, cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. The controversy is covered by the order of this Court. 3In relation to the other questions, namely, the expenses in respect of the HRC Division being treated as Revenue in nature, it is considered that it is an incidental question to question 6.1 and, therefore, the answer given by the Division Bench in its order dated 20[th] November, 2012 covers the same. 4In view of the fact that the controversy is covered fully by the Division Bench judgment referred by us and in relation to both questions, that we are of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Following the Division Bench judgment, we dismiss the same. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)