The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-III, Mumbai v. M/s. Prism Cement Ltd - 2017-LL-0404-2

Citation	2017-LL-0404-2
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-III, Mumbai
Respondent Name	M/s. Prism Cement Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	04/04/2017
Assessment Year	2000-01
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	reimbursement of expenditure • business activity
Bot Summary:	These appeals under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenge the order dated 9 May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The impugned order is a common order disposing of appeals relating to Assessment Years 2000 01, 2003 04 and 2004 05. These two appeals in respect of the Assessment Years 2000 01 and 2004 05 raise identical question for our consideration. The common identical question raised in these two appeals by the Revenue for our consideration is as under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 09:08:39 ::: sg 2/2 itxa1798,1870-14.doc order of the CIT(A) who has deleted the amount of Rs.16,47,146/ reimbursed by the Company to an institute established for running a school at Satna without appreciating the fact that running of school is not a business activity of the Company and that the payment is hit by the provisions of Section 40A(9) of the IT Act, 1961 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal has dismissed the Revenue's appeals for the two subject Assessment Years by holding that the amounts, which were paid by the Assessee Company to its Institute for running a school at Satna in Madhya Pradesh, were not hit by Section 40A(9) of the Act as it was in the nature of reimbursement of expenditure. In view of the fact that the impugned order has merely followed the decision of the Apex Court and of its jurisdictional Court in respect of reimbursement of expenditure, no substantial question of law arises.

sg 1/2 itxa1798,1870-14.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1798 OF 2014 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1870 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central III, Mumbai ..Appellant. v/s. M/s. Prism Cement Ltd. ..Respondent. . Mr. N.C. Mohanty, for Appellant. Mr. Bharat Damodar, i/b. Kanga & Co. for Respondent. . CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, & S.C. GUPTE, JJ. DATE : 4 APRIL, 2017. P.C: . These appeals under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) challenge order dated 9 May 2014 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal ). impugned order is common order disposing of appeals relating to Assessment Years 2000 01, 2003 04 and 2004 05. These two appeals in respect of Assessment Years 2000 01 and 2004 05 raise identical question for our consideration. Therefore, are being heard together. 2. common identical question raised in these two appeals by Revenue for our consideration is as under: 1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in upholding 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 09:08:39 ::: sg 2/2 itxa1798,1870-14.doc order of CIT(A) who has deleted amount of Rs.16,47,146/ reimbursed by Company to institute established for running school at Satna without appreciating fact that running of school is not business activity of Company and that payment is hit by provisions of Section 40A(9) of IT Act, 1961? 3. impugned order of Tribunal has dismissed Revenue's appeals for two subject Assessment Years by holding that amounts, which were paid by Assessee Company to its Institute for running school at Satna in Madhya Pradesh, were not hit by Section 40A(9) of Act as it was in nature of reimbursement of expenditure. This impugned order holds by following decision of this Court in CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.1123 of 2009 decided on 5 March 2012) as well as decision of Apex Court in Kennametal India Ltd. vs. CIT 350 ITR page 209 on identical issues. 4. In view of fact that impugned order has merely followed decision of Apex Court and of its jurisdictional Court in respect of reimbursement of expenditure, no substantial question of law arises. Thus, not entertained. 5. Appeals dismissed. No order as to costs. (S.C. GUPTE,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 09:08:39 ::: TheCommissionerofIncome-tax,Central-III,Mumbai v. M/s.PrismCementLtd

Metadata

Judgment