The appeal was not entertained as it did not give rise to any substantial question of law following a prior order of the Court on identical issues relating to the same respondent-assessee.
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
920.itxa-1858.14.doc
Sbw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1858 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Tax Payer Unit) ..Appellant
Versus
M/s. KSB Pumps Ltd. ..Respondent
Mr. A. R. Malhotra a/w N.A. Kazi for the Appellant.
Mr. R.Murlidhar a/w B.G. Yewale i/b. Rajesh Shah & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ.
DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2017
P.C.
Act) challenges the order dated 3rd February, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09.
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the professional fees paid by the assessee to its Associate Enterprise
2
920.itxa-1858.14.doc
KSB AG of Germany for the implementation of the SAP is revenue in nature, without appreciating that the true nature of the payment is capital?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the exchange loss incurred on acquisition of SAP programme is revenue without appreciating its nature as being capital?”
3. Regarding question no.(i):-
(a) We note that the impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revneue's appeal by following the order dated 8th August, 2013 of its coordinate bench in relation to Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2007-08 in case of the same respondent-assessee.
(b) Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the Revenue very fairly points out that being aggrieved with the above order dated 8th August, 2013 of the Tribunal the Revenue had preferred an appeal to this Court on identical issues relating to Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 being Income Tax Appeal Nos.728 and 777 of 2014. This Court by an order dated 5th October, 2016 did not entertain the Revenue's appeal on the above issue.
3 920.itxa-1858.14.doc
passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos.728 and 777 of 2014, the proposed question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.
4. Regarding question no.(ii):-
(a) It is an agreed position between the parties that the response to the above query same would be a consequence of the answer to question no. (i). So far as question no.(i) is concerned, the same has been held to be a revenue expenditure by the Tribunal and not interfered by us today. Question no.(ii) would consequently have to be answered in favour of the Revenue. Thus the nature of expenditure is revenue as held by the Tribunal.
(b) In view of the above, question no.(ii) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.
(A. K. MENON, J.) (M. S. SANKLECHA, J.)
Wadhwa
Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Tax Payer Unit)
M/s. KSB Pumps Ltd.
M. S. SANKLECHA
A. K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
