Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-4, Mumbai v. Nitco Tiles Limited - 2017-LL-0403-56

Citation	2017-LL-0403-56
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-4, Mumbai
Respondent Name	Nitco Tiles Limited
Court	SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	03/04/2017
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	sales tax • capital receipt
Bot Summary:	We notice from the impugned judgment of the High Court that the Income Tax Department had raised five questions, as substantial questions of law, for Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2017.04.10 determination by the High Court. The High Court has, 09:56:50 IST Reason: however, admitted the appeal only in respect of Question No.4. 1 to 3 and 5 are concerned, the High Court noted that these questions were considered in its earlier decision titled as DCIT versus Reliance Industries in ITA No. 4045/M/91 against the revenue and there is no need to admit the appeal on those questions. We find that against the judgment of the High Court in Reliance Industries case, the Department has preferred the special leave petition, which was granted and ultimately appeal was allowed by this Court, vide its judgment dated 2nd December, 2011 titled as CIT versus Reliance Industries Limited, remitting the case back to the High Court on the ground that the appeal of the Department was dismissed without considering the following question :- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax incentive is a Capital Receipt 6. Since the judgment in Reliance Industries case was relied upon, and in that case, the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration, following the aforesaid course of action, we allow this 3 appeal as well. On the aforesaid question, as formulated, the High Court shall admit the appeal and decide the same on merits. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.

1 IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4831 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 25945 of 2015) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-4, MUMBAI Appellant(s) Versus M/S. NITCO TILES LIMITED Respondent(s) ORDER Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for parties finally. 3. We notice from impugned judgment of High Court that Income Tax Department had raised five questions, as substantial questions of law, for Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2017.04.10 determination by High Court. High Court has, 09:56:50 IST Reason: however, admitted appeal only in respect of Question No.4. 2 4. In so far as Question Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are concerned, High Court noted that these questions were considered in its earlier decision titled as DCIT versus Reliance Industries in ITA No. 4045/M/91 against revenue and, therefore, there is no need to admit appeal on those questions. 5. We find that against judgment of High Court in Reliance Industries case, Department has preferred special leave petition, which was granted and ultimately appeal was allowed by this Court, vide its judgment dated 2nd December, 2011 titled as CIT versus Reliance Industries Limited, remitting case back to High Court on ground that appeal of Department was dismissed without considering following question :- Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax incentive is Capital Receipt? 6. Since judgment in Reliance Industries case was relied upon, and in that case, matter is remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration, following aforesaid course of action, we allow this 3 appeal as well. On aforesaid question, as formulated, High Court shall admit appeal and decide same on merits. J. (A.K. SIKRI) J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) New Delhi, April 03, 2017 4 ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25945/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/11/2014 in ITA No. 1532/2012 passed by High Court Of Bombay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -4, MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. NITCO TILES LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 03/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Karan Seth, Adv. Ms. Saudamini, Adv. Mr. Samrath Singh Nagpal, Adv. For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Kaustubh Shukla,Adv. Mr. Deepayan Mandal, Adv. Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Leave granted. This appeal is allowed in terms of signed order. [MALA KUMARI SHARMA] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S. (Signed order is placed on file) Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-4, Mumbai v. Nitco Tiles Limited

Metadata

Judgment