The Commissioner Of Income Taxtrichy v. M/S.sree Rangaraj Steelsno.90, Vanjoor Villaget.r.pattinam, Karaikal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI T.C. (A) NO. 865 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income TaxTrichy.. Appellant - Vs - M/s.Sree Rangaraj SteelsNo.90, Vanjoor VillageT.R.Pattinam, Karaikal... Respondent Appeal preferred u/s 260-A of the Income Tax Act againstthe order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'Á'Bench, dated 04.07.2013 in ITA No.477/Mds/2013 for theassessment years 2000-2010 and against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Tiruchirapalli dated31.12.2012 and made in ITA No.307/11-12 for the assessment year2009-10 and against the order of the Joint Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur dated 30.12.2011 passedV/s 143(3) of IT.Act for the assessment year 2009-10. In this appeal, the following question of law has beenraised for consideration:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the Tribunal was right in holdingthat the expenditure on reusable cast iron mouldsare to be allowed as revenue expenditure”. 2. It is fairly submitted by the learned standing counselfor the appellant that the issue involved in this appeal hasalready been decided by this Court in T.C (A) Nos.978 to 981 of2013 vide order dated 14.7.14, wherein this Court has heldthus :-“7. Considering the nature of manufacturingprocess, the user of goods, the period of itsshell life and the nature of its use, which ishaving short shell life, the appellate authorityhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as well as the Tribunal have held that the goodsin question, viz., cast iron ingot moulds are tobe treated as revenue expenditure and not ascapital expenditure, holding clearly that mouldsdo not have enduring life, which will be aparameter for considering the same as capitalexpenditure. The short shell life of the castiron ingot moulds, which is to be purchased onregular basis as if it is a part of the storesof spares was treated by the Tribunal as revenueexpenditure and not capital expenditure. Wefind no ground to take a different view from theone taken by the Tribunal, nor counsel for theRevenue is able to point out any proposition oflaw contrary to the above finding of theTribunal. Since the issue revolves around purequestion of fact, there is no question of law,much less substantial question of law arisingfor consideration in these appeals.” 3. Following the above said proposition, we are inclined todismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(Judl.)Dated: 25.07.2014 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar GLNTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirapalli District,. 3. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur. + 1 cc to Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, Advocate SR.31365 RSY(CO)Eu 31.07.14