Income Tax Appeal No. 2271 of 2013. Case: The Commissioner of Income Tax - V, Pune Vs Behr India Ltd.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Income Tax Appeal No. 2271 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Tejveer Singh, Adv. and For Respondents: Sanjiv M. Shah, Adv. |
| Judges | M. S. Sanklecha and B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 10B, 260A, 41(1) |
| Judgement Date | January 25, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 6th May, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal).
-
Although multiple questions have been raised in the Memo of Appeal, Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel for the Revenue is pressing only following questions of law for our consideration:-
(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of claim of deduction u/s 10B made by the assessee by ignoring the fact that the assessee had substantial unabsorbed depreciation and business losses of earlier years to be set off against the profits of Export Oriented Unit?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case in in law, the Tribunal was correct in law to entertain a ground which was dismissed by the CIT(A) as not pressed?
(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the issue of addition made by the A.O. On account of prepayment of deferred sales tax liability u/s 41(1) to the file of A.O. And to decide the issue based on the judgment of Tribunal, Special Bench, Mumbai in Case of Sulzer India Ltd. (2010) 42 SOT 457 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thirumalaiswamy Naidu and Sons (230 ITR 534)?
-
Re. Question (i):-
(a) Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the question as framed by the Revenue stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72. (Bom.). We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has in fact places reliance upon the decision of this Court in Black and Veatch (Supra) in allowing the respondent assessee's appeal.
(b) In the above view, question (i) as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, not entertained.
-
Re. Question No.(ii):-
(a) We find that the impugned order records the fact that the respondent assessee had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial