C.I.T.-VII v. M/s. Siemens
[Citation -2013-LL-0927-170]

Citation 2013-LL-0927-170
Appellant Name C.I.T.-VII
Respondent Name M/s. Siemens
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 27/09/2013
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags allowable deduction
Bot Summary: As regards questions A C, the High Court has admitted the appeal on these two substantial questions of law. Insofar as question D is concerned, the High Court has observed that the said question does not arise from the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. As regards question B, the High Court has held that the said question is covered by a decision of that court in the case of CIT vs. Antifriction Bearings Corporation Ltd. 2000 ITR 295. It is this part of the order which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal. In our view, question B is a substantial question of law which needs to be decided by the High Court in the pending appeal. In other words, question B shall also be decided by the High Court along with questions A and C in the pending appeal being I.T.A. No. 419 of 2010 - The Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Siemens Ltd. 7. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.


IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8742 OF 2013 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 4102 OF 2013] | C.I.T.-VII |...| APPELLANT(s) | | Versus | | M/S. SIEMENS |...| RESPONDENT(s) | ORDER Leave granted. 2. In appeal filed by revenue before High Court under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, following four questions were raised: A. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case in law, Hon'ble I.T.A.T. is right in directing to consider inclusion of write off of Dadri asset of Rs. 4 lakhs and loss on sale/write off of fixed assets as profit of business for computing allowable deduction under Section 32AB of Act despite fact that these items are not covered under adjustments to be made under Section 32AB(3) of Act and also due to fact that assessee itself has not treated these assets as capital item on which depreciation is charged? B. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case in law, Hon'ble I.T.A.T. is right in directing to consider purchases of internal manufactured assets for purposes of deduction under Section 32AB of Act? C. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case in law, Hon'ble I.T.A.T. is right in directing to addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure on temporary construction of site office and building despite fact that it is capital expenditure? D. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case in law, Hon'ble I.T.A.T. is right in directing to allow deduction of interest claimed on borrowings for payment of taxes? 3. As regards questions & C, High Court has admitted appeal on these two substantial questions of law. 4. Insofar as question D is concerned, High Court has observed that said question does not arise from impugned order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). 5. As regards question B, High Court has held that said question is covered by decision of that court in case of CIT vs. Antifriction Bearings Corporation Ltd. 2000 (246) ITR 295. It is this part of order which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 6. In our view, question B is substantial question of law which needs to be decided by High Court in pending appeal. We, accordingly, set-aside this part of order. In other words, question B shall also be decided by High Court along with questions and C in pending appeal being I.T.A. No. 419 of 2010 - Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Siemens Ltd. 7. Appeal is disposed of as above. parties shall bear their own costs. .......J. (R.M. LODHA) .......J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 27, 2013. ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).4102/2013 (From judgement and order dated 23/11/2011 in ITA No.419/2010 of HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) C.I.T-VII Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S SIEMENS Respondent(s) Date: 27/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mr. T.M.Singh, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rustom B.Hathikhanawala,Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Leave granted. Appeal is disposed of in terms of signed order. parties to bear their own costs. |(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) | |Court Master | |Court Master | [SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON FILE] C.I.T.-VII v. M/s. Siemen
Report Error