Though The Revenue Is Challenging The Correctness Of This View Taken By The Tribunal, We Notice That The Issue Stands Already Decided In Favour Of The Assessee v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax [(2010) 329 Itr 91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/26TH JYAISHTA, 1937 ITA.No. 121 of 2015 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 284/COCH/2014 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 06-02-2015 APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEP SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ---------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM (PAN ) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON16-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, RANGE -1, TRIVANDRUM DATED 31.12.2010.OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -1, TRIVANDRUM DATED 31.12.2010. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF LTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM.(APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.284/COCH/2014 DATED 6.2.2015.TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.284/COCH/2014 DATED 6.2.2015. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. -----------------------------------I.T.A.No.121 of 2015 I.T.A.No.121 of 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16[th] day of June, 2015JUDGMENTDated this the 16[th] day of June, 2015JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. 1.This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CochinBench in ITA.No.284/14 concerning the assessment year2008-09. passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CochinBench in ITA.No.284/14 concerning the assessment year2008-09. 2.Two issues were raised before the Tribunal. Firstissue was relating to the electricity duty payableunder section 3(1) of the Electricity Duty Act, 1963and surcharge payable to Government.issue was relating to the electricity duty payableunder section 3(1) of the Electricity Duty Act, 1963and surcharge payable to Government. 3.According to the Assessing Officer, as per theprovisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, anyamount payable by way of tax, cess or fee under anylaw is allowable as deduction only in that previousyear in which such sum is actually paid. On thatbasis, the aforesaid amounts were disallowed. Thiswas reversed by the commissioner (Appeals) and thatorder was confirmed by the Tribunal. provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, anyamount payable by way of tax, cess or fee under anylaw is allowable as deduction only in that previousyear in which such sum is actually paid. On thatbasis, the aforesaid amounts were disallowed. Thiswas reversed by the commissioner (Appeals) and thatorder was confirmed by the Tribunal. ITA.121/15 4.Though the Revenue is challenging the correctness ofthis view taken by the Tribunal, we notice that theissue stands already decided in favour of theassessee by virtue of the judgment of this Court inKerala State Electricity Boardv. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 329 ITR 91].this view taken by the Tribunal, we notice that theissue stands already decided in favour of theassessee by virtue of the judgment of this Court inKerala State Electricity Boardv. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 329 ITR 91]. ITA.121/15 4.Though the Revenue is challenging the correctness ofthis view taken by the Tribunal, we notice that theissue stands already decided in favour of theassessee by virtue of the judgment of this Court inKerala State Electricity Boardv. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 329 ITR 91].this view taken by the Tribunal, we notice that theissue stands already decided in favour of theassessee by virtue of the judgment of this Court inKerala State Electricity Boardv. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 329 ITR 91]. 5.The second issue is with regard to the application ofsection 115JB of the Act so as to tax book profit.The Commissioner (Appeals) found this issue in favourof the assessee and this was confirmed by theTribunal. This issue is also covered in the aforesaidjudgment of this Court rendered in the case of therespondent assessee itself. section 115JB of the Act so as to tax book profit.The Commissioner (Appeals) found this issue in favourof the assessee and this was confirmed by theTribunal. This issue is also covered in the aforesaidjudgment of this Court rendered in the case of therespondent assessee itself. 6.Thus, both the issue raised by the appellant standsanswered against it. Therefore, we do not find anyground to interfere with the order of the Firstappellate authority as confirmed by the Tribunal.answered against it. Therefore, we do not find anyground to interfere with the order of the Firstappellate authority as confirmed by the Tribunal. Appeal fails and is therefore dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. kkb. Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, Judge.