This review petition challenged an appeal order dated 11th October 2004, arguing it overlooked a substantial question regarding finance charges under Section 80HHC. The High Court held the question was considered, found no infirmity, and refused review.
Review petition rejected; no further relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.34 OF 2005
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.771 OF 2002
M/s.Navnitlal & Co. .. Petitioner.
(Org. Appellant)
V/s.
Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
Special Range - 30 .. Respondent.
(Org. Respondent)
Mr.V.H. Patil with Ms.Asifa Khan for the petitioner.
Mr.A.S. Rao for the respondent.
CORAM : R.M. LODHA &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 20TH MARCH, 2006.
P.C. :
Heard Mr.V.H. Patil, the learned counsel for
the assessee-appellant.
2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner
submits that in the memo of appeal two substantial
questions of law were raised but in our order dated
11th October, 2004, we have considered only one
question and the other question concerning Finance
Charges for the purposes of computation of deduction
under Section 80HHC was not considered. In the
appeal the assessee raised the following two
substantial questions of law.
2
1. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the
CIT was right in invoking the jurisdiction
u/s.263 ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that
the finance charges need to be included in
total turnover for the purposes of
computation or deductions u/s.80HHC ?
3. We considered the aforesaid two questions in
the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
In our order dated 11th October, 2004, we reproduced
the findings of the Tribunal recorded in para 6.
4. So far as the first question is concerned,
the finding of the Tribunal ends with the sentence,
"We, therefore, hold that in view of Explanation (c)
to Sec. 263, the CIGT was competent to pass the
order u/s.263".
5. In so far as second question is concerned, we
recorded the finding of the Tribunal beginning with
the expression, "Thus, the assessee’s own conduct
shows" and ending with the sentence, "...... it is
clear that CIT had valid jurisdiction to revise the
order of the A.O."
6. It is thus not correct to say that the
purported question of law No.2 was not adverted to by
3
us. We did not find any infirmity in the
consideration of the matter by the Tribunal and,
accordingly, dismissed the appeal.
7. The order passed by us on 11th October, 2004
cannot be said to suffer from infirmity apparent on
the face of record justifying review of the said
order.
8. The review petition is, accordingly,
rejected.
(R.M. LODHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned Income Tax appeal order of 11th October 2004 was defective for not considering both substantial questions of law raised.
Whether the Tribunal erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s.263.
Whether finance charges needed inclusion in total turnover for deductions u/s.80HHC.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Navnitlal & Co.
Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Special Range - 30
R.M. LODHA
J.P. DEVADHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court