The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.dodsal Pvt.ltd

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.403 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant vs. M/s.Dodsal Pvt.Ltd....Respondent.--- Mr.Suresh Kumar, for appellant. Mr.P.C.Tripathi with Ms.A.Vissanji i/b. A.K.Jasani,for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 21[st] October,2008. P.C.:- 1.The revenue has raised four substantialquestions of law which reads as under:- (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law theHon'ble ITAT was correct in deleting thedisallowance of depreciation on increasedcost of machinery due to foreign exchange ? (b)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law theHon'ble ITAT was correct in restoring thematter back to the file of the AssessingOfficer in regard to disallowance ofRs.3,11,104/- under section 43B of I.T.Act,1961 ? (c)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law theHon'ble ITAT was correct in holding the viewthat lease rent is not taxable on accrualbasis on the facts of the present case. (d)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law theHon'ble ITAT was correct in admitting theadditional grounds of the assessee with regard to his claim of depreciation inrespect of leased assets which was notadmitted by the CIT(A) ?” 2.As regards the question (a) is concerned,the learned Counsel appearing for appellant fairlystates that the Tribunal has relied on its decisionfor the assessment year 1993-94 and the said decisionhas been accepted by the revenue. In this view of thematter, the first question raised by the revenuecannot be entertained. 3.As regards the question (b) is concerned,the matter is only restored back by the Tribunal fordenovo consideration, therefore, the question raisedby the appellant cannot be entertained. 4.As regards the question (c) is concerned,the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is thateven the principal amount had become bad andtherefore, lease rent received actually has to betaken into consideration for taxation and not onaccrual basis. The finding recorded by the tribunal is finding of fact. No question of law arises,therefore, the question raised by the appellantcannot be entertained. 5.As regards the question (d) is concerned, itis only the additional grounds allowed by theTribunal in respect of claim of depreciation inrespect of leased assets. Noquestionoflawarises. Hence, the question (d) raised by the revenuecannot be entertained. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)