The Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Saurabh Industries Ltd - 2015-LL-0610-108

Citation	2015-LL-0610-108
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax-1
Respondent Name	Saurabh Industries Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	10/06/2015
Assessment Year	2006-07
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	income from house property • disallowance of expenses • sufficient opportunity • additional evidence • trading liability • business activity • waiver of loan • lease income • interest • cessation of liability
Bot Summary:	2 The Revenue has urged the following questions of law for our consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in setting aside the issue of cessation of loan liability of Rs.1 crore to the file of CIT(A) without considering the nature of business activity of the assessee of finance and investment, in the light of that the said waiver of loan is in the nature of trading liability and taxable u/s. DCIT taxing the lease income 3 The basic grievance of the Revenue is that the impugned order ought not to have been remanded all the above issues to the Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) for fresh consideration. We are informed that consequent to the impugned order dated 18 th January, 2013 of the Tribunal, on 28th October, 2014, the CIT(A) has passed a fresh order on remand as directed by the impugned order of the Tribunal. In the result, the present appeal has now become infructuous. 4 Needless to state that the dismissal of this appeal will in no manner impinge upon the rights of the parties to take such proceedings in law against the order dated 28 th October, 2014 passed by CIT(A) as are available. 5 Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed as infructous.

itxa-1580-2013 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1580 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax 1 .. Appellant. V/s. M/s. Saurabh Industries Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Appellant. Mr. Manish Kanth i/b. Mr. A. K. Jasani, for Respondent. CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, & N.M.JAMDAR, JJ. DATE : 10th JUNE, 2015. P.C: This Appeal under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges order dated 18th January, 2013 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for Assessment Year 2006 07. 2 Revenue has urged following questions of law for our consideration: (a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ITAT was right in setting aside issue of cessation of loan liability of Rs.1 crore to file of CIT(A) without considering nature of business activity of assessee of finance and investment, in light of that said waiver of loan is in nature of trading liability and taxable u/s. 41(1) r.w.s. 28(iv) of I. T. Act, 1961? (b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ITAT was justified in setting aside issue of amount of Rs.1 crore, being principal amount or interest, S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 15:31:55 ::: itxa-1580-2013 directing CIT(A) to consider additional evidence filed before I.T.A.T. without actually admitting additional evidence and without giving any reason for directing to consider additional evidence which was never filed before A. O. or CIT(A), despite sufficient opportunity giving by them? (c) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ITAT was justified in setting aside issue of taxing lease income of assessee under head income from house property whereas assesse had itself agreed to tax this income before Assessing Officer? (d) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ITAT was justified in setting aside issue of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A relying on decision of High Court in case of Godrej & Boyce v/s. DCIT (328 ITR 81) taxing lease income? 3 basic grievance of Revenue is that impugned order ought not to have been remanded all above issues to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh consideration. We are informed that consequent to impugned order dated 18 th January, 2013 of Tribunal, on 28th October, 2014, CIT(A) has passed fresh order on remand as directed by impugned order of Tribunal. In result, present appeal has now become infructuous. 4 Needless to state that dismissal of this appeal will in no manner impinge upon rights of parties to take such proceedings in law against order dated 28 th October, 2014 passed by CIT(A) as are available. 5 Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed as infructous. No order as to costs. (N.M.JAMDAR,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) S.R.JOSHI 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2020 15:31:55 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Saurabh Industries Ltd

Metadata

Judgment