Disposed

Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur v. M/S Cntral Provinc Mangnese Ore Co.Ltd., Nagpur

Bombay HC10 Dec 2015ITR/29/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court disposed of the Income Tax Reference proceeding. The Court held that the question framed could not and need not be answered as the ITAT had already conclusively found the assessee was not carrying on business, rendering the reference futile.

What did the court decide?

Reference proceedings are disposed of without answering the referred question.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur Vs M/S Cntral Provinc Mangnese… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

1012itr29.94

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

INCOME TAX REFERENCE (itr) No. 29 (B) OF 1994

¶5

The Commissioner of Income Tax

¶6

¶7

M/s Central Province Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. Ngp.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶9

Courts’s or Judge’s orders

¶10

Coram : B.P .Dharmadhikari and V.M.Deshpande, JJ.

¶11

Date : 10th DECEMBER, 2015

¶12

Advocate Bhattad is present for the Income Tax Department. Advocate Dewani is present for the assessee.

¶13

Both the learned counsel, however, express some difficulty in assisting the Court. Advocate Bhattad submits that all the relevant case papers are not supplied to him. Advocate Dewani submits that respondentassessee may not be in existence and he is appearing only because his name figures on the daily board. He is seeking time to obtain instructions.

¶14

We find that under Section 256(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, following question has been referred to this Court :

¶15

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in directing that expenses claimed to be business expenditure be considered for allowances though the

¶16

¶17

1012itr29.94

¶18

assessee company has been held to be not carrying on business by the ITAT itself'?”

¶19

The relevant assessment year is 1984-85. The question as formulated itself shows a conclusive and binding finding that assessee company is not carrying on business. This finding has been reached by ITAT itself earlier and no question enabling us to re-examine or examine this aspect of the matter has been referred.

¶20

Today we have decided Income Tax Reference No. 96 of 1994 between the same parties. There, assessment year in question was same. In that matter we have considered the judgment dated 20.4.2007 delivered by this Court in Income Tax Appln. No. 56 of 1995 for the very same assessment year. In paragraph 6, this Court has observed that in the assessment year in question there was no business income earned by the assessee and this finding has been recorded as undisputed fact. Therefore, Court has found that income would have been from other sources and the deduction of difference in principal amount and actually suit claim by the assessee as income from other sources has been upheld.

¶21

We, in this situation, find that the question as framed cannot and need not be answered. Accordingly, reference proceedings are disposed of.

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

/TA/

Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur v. M/S Cntral Provinc Mangnese Ore Co.Ltd., Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur v. M/S Cntral Provinc Mangnese Ore Co.Ltd., Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Madhya Railways Employees Housing Ass. (through Its Chairman Mahesh Chandra S/O Mewa Ram Arya) Vs Shr Mahadeorao Jangluji Kamatkar and Others

The Commissioner Central Excise Vs M/S. R.S. Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Dr. Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahim (Dead) through Lrs., Mohd. Ayub S/O Abdul Rashid and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Nagpur and Another

Laxmikant S/O Ravindra Faye (in Jail) Vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Another

Bharat S/O Namdeo Bawanpurkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Kurkheda, Gadchiroli and Another

Mahadeo S/O Shamrao Bhaskar (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Nagpur and Another