Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shrimal Construction Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0506-66]

Citation 2015-LL-0506-66
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax
Respondent Name Shrimal Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 06/05/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags business expenditure incurred • contract payment • labour charges • labour payment
Bot Summary: JUDGMENT This appeal by revenue under Section 260A has been filed challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Commissioner, Appeal and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the matter of disallowing a entry of Rs.14,58,92,670/- received by the assessee from M/s Binani Cement. The concurrent findings recorded by both the authorities are that this amount was paid towards contract payment, labour payment etc. In pursuance to the contract entered into between the assessee and M/s Binani Cement for their work at Sirohi in Rajasthan. In the same assessment year the CIT(A), Central 1, Kolkatta in its order dated 21.4.2011 has held that the payment made by M/s Binani Cement are incidental business expenditure incurred in for payment of labour charges, wages etc. The concurrent orders passed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal are based on due appreciation of material available on record. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting reconsideration in this proceedings under Section 260A. 2.


ITA-7-2015 (INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Vs M/S SHRIMAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD.) 06-05-2015 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR ITA No.07/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Shrimal Construction Pvt. Ltd. Present: Hon ble Shri Rajendra Menon, J. & Hon'ble Shri M. C. Garg, J. Shri S. A. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for appellant. JUDGMENT (6/5/2015.) This appeal by revenue under Section 260A has been filed challenging concurrent orders passed by Commissioner, Appeal and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in matter of disallowing entry of Rs.14,58,92,670/- received by assessee from M/s Binani Cement. concurrent findings recorded by both authorities are that this amount was paid towards contract payment, labour payment etc. in pursuance to contract entered into between assessee and M/s Binani Cement for their work at Sirohi in Rajasthan. In same assessment year CIT(A), Central 1, Kolkatta in its order dated 21.4.2011 has held that payment made by M/s Binani Cement (assessee in said case) are incidental business expenditure incurred in for payment of labour charges, wages etc.. concurrent orders passed by Commissioner and Tribunal are based on due appreciation of material available on record. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting reconsideration in this proceedings under Section 260A. 2. Accordingly, we reject appeal. (RAJENDRA MENON) (MOOL CHAND GARG) JUDGE JUDGE Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shrimal Construction Pvt. Ltd
Report Error