ORDER SHEET ITA 80 of 2004 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE M/S. TATA TEA LTD. Versus C.I.T. II, KOLKATA BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 14th August, 2014. For Appellant : Mr.Ananda Sen,Advocate. For Revenue: Mr.P.Dhudhoria,Advocate Court : This appeal has been preferred under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 31st October, 2003 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1101(Cal) of 2001 in respect of assessment year 1995-96 on following questions : (i) Whether Tribunal was justified in dealing with and disposing of Ground No.3 of Memorandum of Appeal abefore it on merits without allowing to make and/or without hearing verbal submissions of Authorised Representatives of appellant and respondents and in doing so whether Tribunal acted in gross violation of principles of natural justice and/or perversely ? ii) Whether Tribunal was justified in confirming disallowance of fees paid to international consulting firm of lawyers in connection with acquiring Tetley brand of tea on admitted factual position that attempt to acquire said brand did not ultimately fructify, 2 ignoring binding precedent decision of jurisdictional High Court? iii) Whether Tribunal was justified in upholding finding of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) whereby he disallowed expenditure incurred for acquiring Tetley brand of tea on ground that said activity was in nature of acquisition of goodwill and in doing so whether Tribunal acted perversely ?. iv) Whether sub-section (4B) inserted to section 80-HHC of I.T.Act by Finance Act, 1999 has altered law and/or has any application in rejecting relief claimed by assessee under section 80-HHC of I.T.Act before application of Rule 8 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and whether Tribunal was justified in confirming order of CIT (Appeals) on Ground No.2 before it ? v) Whether Tribunal was justified in confirming order of CIT (Appeals) whereby he disallowed depreciation, rent, cost of food and repairs in respect of guest houses of appellant ? Heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learned advocate for appellant/assessee and Mr.Prithu Dhudhoria, learned advocate for respondent/revenue. It is submitted by Mr.Sen that question nos.1,2 and 3 have been answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue in answer to question no.2 in judgement in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Woodcraft Products Ltd: 217 ITR 862 and question no.4 in judgement in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Graphite India Ltd : 221 ITR 420. 3 So far as question no.4 is concerned, same is answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee in view of judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Williamson Financial Services & Ors. 297 ITR 17 (SC). So far as question no.5 is concerned, same is answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee in view of case in Britannia Industires Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr : 278 ITR 546 (SC). Hence, appeal and application are disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to appearing parties on priority basis. (SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) ssaha AR(CR) M/s. Tata Tea Ltd. v. C.I.T.-II Kolkata