The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara v. M/S Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer And Chemicals Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 147 of 2019 =============================================THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA 3 Versus M/S GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS LTD ============================================= Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1MR MANISH J SHAH(1320) for the Opponent(s) No. 1============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date : 26/08/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.This Tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat dated 27.09.2018 in the ITA No.1556/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.The Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court : “(a)Whether in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in upholding the deletion of addition on account of disallowance of expenses on consumption and replacement of stores and spares of Rs.2,42,80,892/- treating the same as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure? (b)Whether in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act in respect of expenses being contribution / donation to educational institutions, trust, local bodies of Rs.16,42,56,000/-? (c)Whether in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) in respect of commission payment to dealers of Rs.4,38,56,790/- without appreciating that considering the nature of services rendered by the dealers to the assessee Company, the Assessing Officer had correctly made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act by invoking the provision of Explanation (i) to section 194H of the Act?” 3.So far as the questions Nos.1 and 3 as proposed by the Revenue are concerned, the same are no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. in the Tax Appeal No.1360 of 2018. 4.So far as the question No.2 as proposed by the Revenue is concerned, this issue is also no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. in the Tax Appeal No.146 of 2019. 5.In view of the above, as none of the proposed questions are debatable, this Tax Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) Dolly