Commissioner of Income-tax Moradabad & Another v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0719-30]

Citation 2017-LL-0719-30
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax Moradabad & Another
Respondent Name Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 19/07/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags plant and machinery • question of law • revenue nature • gratuity fund • incentive bonus • capital receipt


Court No. - 3 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 559 of 2012 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax Moradabad & Another Respondent :- M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Counsel for Appellant :- S.S.C. I.T.,Gaurav Mahajan Counsel for Respondent :- Shakeel Ahmad Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Heard Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for Revenue and Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent. This appeal preferred by Revenue against order of Tribunal dated 14th July, 2006 raises following three questions of law:- "(1) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in upholding order of CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of Rs.29,50,440/- made by A.O. on account of Production Incentive Bonus? (2) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in upholding order of CIT (A) in directing A.O. to treat incentives of Rs.3,92,01,532/- as Capital Receipt? (3) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in upholding order of CIT (A) in directing A.O. to treat incentive on additional free sale of sugar as Capital Receipts?" first question of law has been answered by this Court vide judgment and order dated 04.02.2010 in Income Tax Appeal No.143 of 2007 between same parties. As far as question no.2 is concerned, it is more or less factual controversy and does not give rise to any substantial question of law in view of finding of Tribunal that gratuity fund is recognized by CIT and therefore, deletion of Rs.13,62,665/- and Rs.80,62,807/- as made by Assessing Officer is not permissible. In regard to question no.3, expenses incurred in maintenance and repair of plant and machinery have been held to be revenue nature and departmental representative has conceded to this before Tribunal. In view of above, concession of departmental representative, no dispute in that regard can be raised by revenue in this appeal. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and same is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.7.2017 Nadim Commissioner of Income-tax Moradabad & Another v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd
Report Error