The Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0713-9]

Metadata

Citation 2017-LL-0713-9
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur
Respondent Name Ballarpur Industries Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 13/07/2017
Assessment Year 1991-92
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags reference application • deduction of royalty • allowable deduction • guest house
Bot Summary: By this reference application u/s.256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal seeks our opinion on the following two questions of law : 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in directing that deduction of royalty on bamboo exploited be allowed at rates other than those specified in the 1968 and 1947 agreements drawn up with the Government of Maharashtra 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that depreciation on guest house is allowable deduction in-spite of the specific prohibition u/s.37(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 2. It is an agreed position between the parties that so far as question no.1 is concerned, the same would stand concluded against the Applicant/Revenue and in favour of the Respondent/Assessee by decision of this Court rendered today on identical question in I.T.R. No.3 of 1995 relating to Assessment Year 1988-89. Thus, question no.1 is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Respondent/Assessee and against the Applicant/Revenue. So far as question No.2 is concerned, it is an admitted position between the parties that the issue raised herein stands concluded against the Respondent/Assessee and in favour of the Applicant/Revenue by decision of the Apex Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, 278 ITR 0546. Question no.2 is also answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the applicant/Revenue and against the Respondent/Assessee.

Judgment



IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Income Tax Reference No.14 of 2002 (The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur .vs. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., New Delhi) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr.S.N.Bhattad, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.K.P.Dewani, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATE : 13.7.2017. 1. By this reference application u/s.256(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) seeks our opinion on following two questions of law : 1. Whether in facts and circumstances of case and in law Tribunal was justified in directing that deduction of royalty on bamboo exploited be allowed at rates other than those specified in 1968 and 1947 agreements drawn up with Government of Maharashtra ? 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of case and in law Tribunal was justified in holding that depreciation on guest house is allowable deduction in-spite of specific prohibition u/s.37(4) of I.T. Act, 1961 ? 2. This Reference relates to Assessment Year 1991-92. ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 09:27:08 ::: 2 137Itr14.02.odt 3. It is agreed position between parties that so far as question no.1 is concerned, same would stand concluded against Applicant/Revenue and in favour of Respondent/Assessee by decision of this Court rendered today on identical question in I.T.R. No.3 of 1995 (the Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur .vs. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.) relating to Assessment Year 1988-89. Thus, question no.1 is answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of Respondent/Assessee and against Applicant/Revenue. 4. So far as question No.2 is concerned, it is admitted position between parties that issue raised herein stands concluded against Respondent/Assessee and in favour of Applicant/Revenue by decision of Apex Court in case of Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, 278 ITR 0546. Therefore, question no.2 is also answered in negative i.e. in favour of applicant/Revenue and against Respondent/Assessee. 5. Reference is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE jaiswal ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 09:27:08 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd
Report Error