ITXA.161.2013.905.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax 11 } Appellant versus M/s. NGC Network India P. Ltd. } Respondent Mr. P. C. Chhotaray for Appellant. Mr. Porus F. Kaka Senior Advocate with Mr. Divesh Chawla i/b. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & S.P.DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 9, 2015 P.C. : This Appeal of Revenue challenges order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Income Tax Appeal No. 2867/Mum/2010 for assessment year 2002 03. order of Tribunal dated 29th June, 2012 decided Appeal and Cross Objection of Respondent Assessee. 2) According to Mr. Chhotaray appearing for Appellant, this order of Tribunal raises substantial questions of law. They pertain to finding on proceedings under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 being held and termed as invalid and secondly, deduction allowed in respect of whole advertisement and promotion Page 1 of 3 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 10:49:06 ::: ITXA.161.2013.905.doc expenditure. Mr. Chhotaray submits that it was not Assessee who benefited by such expenditure, but it was Assessee's principal and for whom expenditure was incurred. Thus, expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of business of Assessee in terms of section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) Mr. Chhotaray and Mr. Kaka Senior Counsel appearing for Assessee/Respondent fairly invite our attention to two orders, which have been delivered by this Court in very Assessee's case. Income Tax Appeal No. 538 of 2012 decided on 13 th October, 2014 dealt with very issue and particularly, whether expenditure was incurred wholly for business of Assessee in terms of section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961? detailed order passed after hearing both sides concludes issue in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. That order was followed in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 539 and 595 of 2012. Each of these Appeals raised identical question and issue. 4) In light of detailed order, we are of opinion that present Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Once issue has been answered on merits in favour of Assessee and against Revenue, then, we are not required to consider other grievance of Revenue, namely, proceedings were valid and not Page 2 of 3 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 10:49:06 ::: ITXA.161.2013.905.doc vitiated, as held by Tribunal. argument of Mr. Chhotaray that recourse to section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was permissible need not detain us as it is not required to be gone into once merits of case have been dealt with extensively by this Court. 5) We are also not required to give any clarification or correction with regard to earlier Judgment and order simply because this Court concluded that expenditure was incurred wholly for business of Assessee and Assessee is company based in India. In these circumstances, present Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is dismissed. No costs. (S.P.DESHMUKH, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Page 3 of 3 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 10:49:06 Commissioner of Income-Tax-11 v. NGC Network India P. Ltd