The Commissioner Income Tax & Another v. Radico Khaitan Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0924-12]

Citation 2015-LL-0924-12
Appellant Name The Commissioner Income Tax & Another
Respondent Name Radico Khaitan Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 24/09/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags question of law
Bot Summary: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of CIT on the issue of allowance of depreciation on Tourist Guest House 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the claim of depreciation on assets in respect of Radico Textile Unit which had not yet commenced production during the year under consideration 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the claim of expenses in respect of Radico Textile Unit treating the same as expansion of assesse's existing business Question no.1 is covered against the assessee in theassessee's own case for the assessment year 1990-91 reported in 274 ITR 354. 3 is covered against the assessee inthe assessee's own case for the assessment year1993-94 reported in 360 ITR 462. Issue no.5 is covered in favour of the assessee in theassessee's own case for the Assessment Year 1993-94 by judgment dated 4.9.2013 reported in 360 ITR 462.Consequently, the said issue is decided in favour of theassesee and against the department. Issue no.6 is covered against the assessee in theassessee's own case for the year 1993-94 by judgmentdated 4.9.2013 reported in 360 ITR 462. In the assessee's own case forthe assessment year 1993-94 reported in 360 ITR 462.


1

Court No. - 37
Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 219 of 2006
Appellant :- Commissioner Income Tax & Another
Respondent :- Radico Khaitan Ltd.
Counsel for Appellant :- A.N. Mahajan,C.S.C.,R.K.
Upadhyaya
Counsel for Respondent :- R.S.Agrawal

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

We have heard, Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri Rupesh Jain along with Sri R.S.
Agrawal, learned counsel for assessee.

appeal was admitted on following substantial
questions of law:

1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the
case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that receipt of
interest on loans land deposits given to various parties was
income from Income profits and gains of business and
profession instead of income from other sources?

2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the
case, Tribunal was right in law in directing A.O. to allow
depreciation on tube well at higher rate of 25%?

3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the
case, Tribunal was right in law in confirming order of
CIT (A) on issue of allowance of depreciation on Tourist
Guest House?

4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the
case, Tribunal was right in law in allowing claim of
depreciation on assets in respect of Radico Textile Unit which
had not yet commenced production during year under
consideration?

5. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the
case, Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction u/s 80-
I on gross total income before allowing deduction u/s 80 -HH?

6. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the
case, Tribunal was right in law in deleting disallowance
of expenses made by A.O. related to guest house?
2

7. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the
case, Tribunal was right in law in deleting disallowance
on account of rent of transit guest house?

8. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the
case, Tribunal was right in law in allowing claim of
expenses in respect of Radico Textile Unit treating same as
expansion of assesse's existing business?

Question no.1 is covered against assessee in the
assessee's own case for assessment year 1990-
91 reported in 274 ITR 354. Consequently, said issue is
answered against assessee and in favour of the
Revenue.

Similarly, issue no. 3 is covered against assessee in
the assessee's own case for assessment year
1993-94 reported in 360 ITR 462. Consequently, said
issue is answered against assessee and in favour of the
department.

Issue no.5 is covered in favour of assessee in the
assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1993-
94 by judgment dated 4.9.2013 reported in 360 ITR 462.
Consequently, said issue is decided in favour of the
assesee and against department.

Issue no.6 is covered against assessee in the
assessee's own case for year 1993-94 by judgment
dated 4.9.2013 reported in 360 ITR 462. Consequently, the
said issue is decided against assessee and in favour of
the Department.

Issue no.7 is covered against assessee by
judgment dated 4.9.2013. In assessee's own case for
the assessment year 1993-94 reported in 360 ITR 462.
3

The issue is decided against assessee and in favour of
the Department.

With regard to issue nos.2,4 and 8, same were
decided in favour of assessee for Assessment Year
1993-94, which was accepted by Department as they
did not challenge judgment of Tribunal. Since no
distinguishing features have been pointed out and the
principle of consistency is required to be maintained inter
se between parties, we are of opinion that the
Department cannot be permitted to question these issues
when it was accepted by them in previous years.

Our view is supported by decisions of Supreme
Court in Radhasoami Satsang Vs. Commissioner of
Income Tax, (1992) 193 ITR 321, Berger Paints India
Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 266 ITR
99 and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bal
Pharma Limited, Bangalore and others (2011) 2 SCC
620.

Consequently, issue nos.2,4 and 8 are decided against
the Department and in favour of assessee.

In light of aforesaid, appeal is partly
allowed.

Order Date :- 24.9.2015/vkg




(Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.)
Commissioner Income Tax & Another v. Radico Khaitan Ltd
Report Error