Disposed

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Mumbai v. M/S Tractor Engineers Ltd., Mumbai

Bombay HC21 Jan 2009ITXA/1100/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Income Tax Appeal regarding four legal questions was disposed off based on precedent. Questions on canteen subsidy and service charges were dismissed as not arising, while the belated PF contribution issue was decided against the assessee and the capital loss issue was decided in its favor.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed off; fourth question answered in favor of the assessee; third question answered against the assessee; first and second questions dismissed as not arising.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Mumbai Vs M/S Tractor… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

K.J.

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2008

¶5

 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2 )
 384,Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai-20)..Appellant

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

 M/s.Tractor Engineers Ltd., Mumbai )..Respondent

¶8

 ----

¶9

 Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the
 appellant.

¶10

 Mr.A.K.Jasani with Mr.P.C.Tripathi for the
 respondent.

¶11

 ----

¶12

 Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ

¶13

 Date : 21.01.2009.

¶14

PC

¶15

 1. Revenue has come in appeal on the following

¶16

 questions :-

¶17

 (i) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
 of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in law in
 holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction
 u/s 40A(9) on account of canteen subsidy of Rs.36.72
 lac, disregarding the fact that such deduction is
 not allowable in accordance with the provisions of
 sec.40A(9) of the I T Act ?"

¶18

 (ii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
 of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in
 law in holding that part of services charges paid to
 the L & T Ltd is an allowable deduction, ignoring
 the fact the Assessing Officer made the disallowance
 on the ground that any profit margin charged on
 payment of service charges cannot be allowed as a
 business expenditure ?"

¶19

 : 2 :

¶20

 (iii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
 of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in law in
 holding that belated paymentof PF contribution is
 entitled for deduction u/s 43B of the Act, even
 though in view of 2nd proviso to section 43B this
 amount was not admissible as deduction in view of
 Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s order dated 8-10-2007 in
 the case of CIT Vs Godavari Mannar Sakhar Karkhana
 Ltd (TIOL-580-HC-Mumbai-IT) ?"

¶21

 (iv) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
 of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in law in
 directing to take cognizance of the loss incurred on
 account of purchase and sale of units for the
 purpose of computation of income of the assessee,
 disregarding the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab &
 Haryana HC in the case of Vanit Jain Vs CIT (294 ITR
 432) (P&H)?"

¶22

 2. In so far as question no.(i) is concerned, a
 similar issue had come up for consideration in
 Income Tax Appeal No.504 of 2005. That was in
 respect of Assessment year-1990-91. Learned Bench

¶23

 of this Court has taken the view that the revenue
 had not, in respect of the said Assessment year,
 preferred an appeal against the said order in favour
 of the assessee and consequently accepted the same.
 Considering that, question no.1 would not arise.

¶24

 3. In so far as question no.(ii) is concerned, we
 find from the order of CIT(A) that the similar issue
 had been decided in the appellants’ favour by CIT(A)
 for the previous assessment years. For the
 assessment year 1997-98 revenue had preferred an
 appeal which was dismissed for non prosecution. No
 appeal was preferred for the assessment year

¶25

 : 3 :

¶26

 1998-99. Considering the above, in our opinion, as
 the revenue had accepted the said finding, the
 question no.2 would not arise.

¶27

 4. In so far as question no.(iii) is concerned, the
 said issue is covered by the judgment of this Court
 in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Pamwi Tissues
 Ltd., reported in (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150.
 Cosidering that, the said question is answered
 against the assessee and in favour of revenue.

¶28

 5. In so far as question no.(iv) is concerned, the
 same is covered by the judgment of this Court in
 Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. M/s.Walfort share &
 stock brokers Pvt.Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.18
 of 2006 decided on 8.8.2008. In the light of that,
 the said issue is answered in favour of the
 assessee.

¶29

 6. Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

¶30

 (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Mumbai v. M/S Tractor Engineers Ltd., Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Mumbai v. M/S Tractor Engineers Ltd., Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dorr-Oliver(India) Ltd., C/O. Sharp and Tannon, Chartered Accountants, Bank of Baroda Building, Bom Vs the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City Ii, Bombay.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-City VI Mumbai Vs a-One Management Services (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Director of Income-Tax. Mumbai. Vs Dbs Bank Ltd., Mumbai.

the commissioner of income-tax-8,mum Vs m/s chunilal and co.(tm) p.ltd

Smt. Rashmi Shrikant. Vs the C.W. T.

C.W.T. City-I Bombay Vs Sri Dharmendra Deol