The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5 } v. This Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Order Passed On

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1620 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5}AppellantversusM/s. Essar Steel Ltd.}Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. P. J. Pardiwala-Senior Advocate with Mr. P. C. Tripathi i/b. Mr. Amit K. Jasani for the Respondent. P.C. :- CORAM :-S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &A.A.SAYED, JJ.DATED :-DECEMBER 24, 2014 This Appeal of the Revenue challenges the order passed on 4[th] April, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No. 850/A/2002. The assessment year is 1998-99. 2)The Revenue terms the following two questions as substantial questions of law: “(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the expenditure amounting to Rs.2,18,11,65,893/- of HRC plant as revenue expenditure though it was shown in the balance sheet as capital work in progress? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal” is correct in law in allowing the expenditure amounting to Rs.26,62,32,317/- of HRC Division shown by the assessee company as deferred revenue expenditure though it was in the nature of capital expenditure? 3)Mr. Pardiwala-Senior Counsel appearing for the Assessee brought to our notice two orders in Revenue's Appeals being Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2011 dated 20[th] November, 2012 and Income Tax Appeal No. 2595 of 2011 dated 30[th] April, 2014. 4)On 10[th] June, 2014, an order was passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2012. Each of these orders pertain to the same Assessee. In the order dated 10[th] June, 2014, the very two questions arising out of the same facts and pertaining to the same Assessee have been dealt with. Insofar as question No. (a), which is common to the two questions here, this Court opined that the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It proceeded to dismiss the Appeal being Income Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2012 in relation to these questions and following the earlier orders. 5)Since nothing, which could distinguish these orders, has been placed on record by the Revenue, we are of the view that the factual findings would bind the Revenue. These factual findings and which have been upheld by this Court do not raise any substantial question of law. The Appeal is therefore dismissed following the said order. No costs. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)