The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Pune v. Finolex Cables Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1367 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune ..Appellant. Versus Finolex Cables Limited..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate i/by Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr.S.N. Inamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent. P.C. : 1.In this appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 1999- 2000, following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration. a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified insetting aside the order of CIT (A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee for set off of loss of M/s.Finoram Sheets Limited as claimed in its revised return ? b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not appreciating the fact that Urse-II and Pimpri Unit-II was only expansion of existing ongoing industrial undertaking and was not a new industrial undertaking and hence do not qualify for separate deduction under Section 80IA of the Act ? c)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not erred in holding Urse-II and Pimpri-II are independent units eligible for deduction under Section 80IA by not appreciating the findings of the assessing officer that Urse Unit – II and Pimpri Unit – II are mere extensions of the existing Urse Unit – I and Pimpri Unit – I ? d)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing relief to the assessee in computation of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act without appreciating the reasons mentioned by the assessing officer for reducing the said claim made by the assessee in its return of income ? e)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in not allowing its own decision in the case of the assessee for Ays 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 on the issue of disallowance of depreciation on leased out assets and in setting aside the matter and restoring the issue back to the file of assessing officer in the year under consideration ? 2.It is not disputed by the counsel on both sides that all the questions raised in this appeal stands covered by the decision rendered by us today i.e. 30[th] January 2013 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1369 of 2012 in the assessee's own case. For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)