Dismissed

Commissioner of Income TAX-2 v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Bombay HC23 Aug 2016ITXA/1152/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed two income tax appeals where the Revenue challenged a Tribunal's finding that LPG bottling qualifies as a manufacturing activity for tax incentive sections. The Court held the legal issues were already conclusively settled by its own prior judgment in favor of the taxpayer.

What did the court decide?

Both Income Tax Appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs, as the legal issues were deemed settled by the Court's prior judgment.

Commissioner of Income TAX-2 Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1152-14-itxa-c=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1152 OF 2014 WITH

¶4

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1145 OF 2014

¶5

Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Mumbai

¶6

.. Appellant

¶7

v/s.

¶8

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for the appellant Mr. J.D. Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent

¶11

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, J.J.

¶12

DATED : 23^rd AUGUST, 2016.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

The Income Tax Appeal No.1145 of 2014 is not on board.

¶15

Mentioned. As the issue involved in Appeal No.1145 of 2014 is identical to the issue in Income Tax Appeal No.1152 of 2014 which is on board, the Counsel request that both appeals be heard together.

¶16

The Income Tax Appeal No.1152 of 2014 is in respect of the A.Y. 1995-96 and Income Tax Appeal No.1145 of 2014 is in respect of A.Y. 1994-95.

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

1152-14-itxa-c=.doc

Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue urges the

¶21

only following two questions of law for our consideration :-

¶22

(i) Whether the activity of mere bottling of LPG gas into cylinders amounts to production or manufacturing activity for the purpose of Sections 80HH/80I/80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

¶23

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the activity of bottling of LPG amounts to production or manufacturing activity for the purposes of Sections 80HH/80I/80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the process of bottling the LPG into gas cylinders makes the same marketable on execution of the process even though no new product comes into existence?

¶24

The impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the respondent assessee's appeal for both the Assessment Years by placing reliance upon the decision of this Court dated 3^rd May, 2013 in the respondent assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal Nos. 612 of 2001 and 613 of 2001 in appeals filed by the Revenue. This Court by an order dated

¶25

3^rd May, 2013 allowed the respondent assessee's appeals from the order

2 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

1152-14-itxa-c=.doc

of the Tribunal rejecting the respondent assessee's contention herein that the activity carried out by them in respect of its LPG bottling plant would entitle it to the benefit under Section 80HH, 80I and 80IA of the Act.

¶30

Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the issue stands concluded by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 612 of 2001 and 613 of 2001 decided on 3^rd May, 2013 against the appellant Revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee.

¶31

In the above view, the questions as raised do not give rise any substantial question of law being covered by the decision of this Court in favour of the respondent assessee. Thus, the appeals are not entertained.

¶32

Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶33

(S.C. GUPTE, J.)

¶34

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶35

3 of 3

¶36

Uday S. Jagtap

Commissioner of Income TAX-2 v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income TAX-2 v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fthe C.I.T.City-Viii,Mumbai. Vs M/S.Colourtronic Film Lab

Srestha Arts and Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Director of Income Tax (OSD)-2(3)

Shri. Damodar Badrinarayan Bhandari and Anr. Vs the Director General of Income-Tax (Investigation) and Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Pune Vs Chetan Vithal Tupe

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv Vs Pirangut Springs Ltd.(Formerly Called T.C. Springs Ltd.)

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs Dy. Cit Rg.-3(3), Mumbai and Another