The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Alwar v. M/S Indian Shavings Products Ltd., Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 853 / 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar. ----Appellant Versus M/S Indian Shavings Products Ltd., SPA-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar _____________________________________________________HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASJudgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri, J. 25/04/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal haspartly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 2.This Court while admitting the appeal on 01.11.2010 hasframed the following substantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal was justified in reviewing itsdecision specifically when all the facts werebefore the Tribunal? 2.Whetheronthefactsandcircumstances of the case and in law theTribunal was justified in allowing theexchange loss on foreign currency exportadvance for Rs. 2,06,31,512/- on accrualbasis when the foreign currency exportadvance was not utilized for businesspurposes? 3.”Whetheronthefactand circumstances of the case and in law theTribunal was justified in allowing theexpenditure of Rs. 13,09,559/- under thehead ‘market research’ without consideringthe nature of expenditure when the samewas incurred for enduring benefit and was acapital expenditure?” 3.Counsel for the appellant has contended that the view takenby the Tribunal is erroneous and requires to be reversed and thefindings arrived at by the CIT(A) is required to be restored. 4.However, in so far as issue No.1 & 2 are concerned, counselfor the respondent has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 0254 which wasfollowed by this Court in the case of Indian Shaving ProductLtd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in DB Income TaxAppeal No.330/2005, decided on 10.01.2017 wherein it isobserved as under: “3.Counsel for the appellant hascontended that the issue is squarelycovered by the decision of Supreme Courtin the case of Commissioner of Income Taxvs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd.(2009) 312 ITR 0254. 4. Counsel for the respondent hascontended that the same year by revocationorder they have taken advantage of thesame decision. 5. Taking into consideration the decision ofthe Supreme Court, we are of the opinionthat the issue is required to be answered infavour of the assessee. Therefore, we remitthe matter back to the AO who will considerthe aforesaid decision and pursuant to thedirection of the Supreme Court exactamount will be calculated in favour of theassessee.” 5.In so far as issue No.3 is concerned, counsel for therespondent has relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in thecases of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Priya VillageRoadshows Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 0594 and CIT vs. HindustanTimes [2012] 211 Taxman 202 (Delhi) and the decision ofAndhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CoromandelFertilizers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1984) 148ITR 0546. 6.In that view of the matter, the issues are answered in favourof the assessee and against the department. 7.The appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. bblm/87