The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... App v. M/S. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX (L) NO. 2927 OF 2008 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX (L) NO. 2927 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax ... App The Commissioner of Income Tax ... App Versus M/s. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. B.V. Jhaveri with Ms. Priti Shukla for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, &R.S. MOHITE, JJ. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 P.C. P.C. . By consent of the parties, taken up on board and heard forthwith. . The Revenue has preferred the appeal on the following questions : "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and Law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in allowing the claim of interest and depreciation of assets taken on lease? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in holding the assessee’s claim of realization of additional free sale quota of sugar as capital receipt? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure made by A.O. invoking Section 14A of the Act? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in allowing the disallowance of depreciation made by A.O. despite that the subsidy received from Central/State Govt. should not be included in the cost of Asset?" . In so far as question (a) is concerned, the same was also in issue in I.T.X.A. No.2923 of 2008. that has been disposed of by our order dated 10.2.2009.The same reasoning will also apply to the issue in question. Hence, the question is answered in the affirmative in favour of assessee and against Revenue. . In so far as question (b) is concerned, the same was also in issue in I.T.X.A. No.2926 of 2008. that has been disposed of by our order dated 10.2.2009.The same reasoning will also apply to the issue in question. Hence, the question is answered in the affirmative in favour of assessee and against Revenue. . In so far as question No (c) is concerned, parties agree that the same is finding of fact and consequently the question as framed would not arise. . In so far as question (d), I.T.A.T. has remanded the matter to C.I.T. (A). The C.I.T.(A) has since decided the matter and the assessee has preferred the appeal which is pending. Considering that the said question will not arise. . Consequently appeal dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)