The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. Pursarth Trading Company Private Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.123 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 9, MumbaiVersusPursarth Trading Company Private Limited ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.Tejveer Singh with Mr.A.K. Saxena for the appellant.Mr.Vipul Joshi with Mr.P.C. Tripathi and Mr.Aditya Bhatt for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 13[th] March 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2006-07, although two questions have been proposed for our consideration, since question No.(ii) does not arise from the order of the Tribunal, only question (i) is being pressed by the Revenue, which reads thus : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing to set off the long term capital loss against the short term capital gain assessed in the hands of the assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” 2.The respondent – assessee sold its office premises and secured long term capital gains. However, being a depreciable asset computed its itxal123-13 gains in terms of Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the respondent – assessee to set-off its carry forward long term capital loss against the long term capital gains made under Section 74 of the Act in view of Section 50 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) upheld the order of the assessing officer. 3.On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the claim of the respondent – assessee to set off its long term capital loss in terms of Section 74 of the Act by following its decision in the matter of Manali Investments V/s.ACIT reported in (2011) 10 Taxman.com 297. The Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of the Tribunal in the matter of Manali Investments (supra) to this Court in appeal, being Income Tax Appeal No.1658 of 2012. By our order passed today i.e. 13[th] March 2013, we have refused to entertain Income Tax Appeal No.1658 of 2012. 3.For the reasons indicated in our order passed today i.e. 13[th ]March 2013 in Income Tax Appeal No.1658 of 2012 filed by the Revenue in respect of Manali Investments, we see no reason to entertain the proposed re-framed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)