HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 129 / 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota Appellant Versus M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., Gadepan, Kota Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 08/08/2017 By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has disposed of appeal of assessee as well as department. Counsel for appellant has framed following substantial questions of law:- i). Whether Tribunal was legally justified in reversing findings of CIT(A) and allowing deduction of Rs. 41,59,57,420/- u/s 80IA to captive power plant on DG Set when power consumption was by assessee company? ii) Whether Tribunal was legally justified in deleting addition of Rs. 11,71,382/- made on account of depreciation on catalyst which was not allowable as per Section 32 and Income Tax Rules? iii) Whether Tribunal was legally justified in deleting addition of Rs. 2,48,82,876/- on account of sales tax collected and converted into loan? iv) Whether Tribunal was legally justified in (2 of 3) [ITA-129/2017] deleting addition of Rs. 2,48,82,876/- by treating pre-payment of deferred sales tax liability as income for A.Y. 2005-06 instead of A.Y. 2008-09 specifically when incentive was notified and allowed by State Govt. in A.Y. 2008-09 thus being taxable in current year? v) Whether Tribunal was legally justified in deleting addition of Rs. 22,93,923/- made for donation to DAV trust which was not allowable as per section 40A(9) also being not incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of business of assessee? vi) Whether Tribunal was legally justified in allowing club expenses of Rs. 10,16,659/- specifically when same were incurred by assessee for membership of its employees u/s 37 which could not be held to be incurred for purpose of business? vii) Whether Tribunal was legally justified in allowing deduction of Rs. 10,44,19,543/- u/s 50B towards net current assets at their book value by treating it as cost of acquisition while calculating capital gain arising on sale of food processing unit? viii) Whether Tribunal was legally justified in deleting disallowance for Rs. 10,80,000/- made on account of rent paid to wife of Vice Chairman of Company u/s 40A(2)(b) specifically when premises was taken on lease for residential purposes and assessee failed to justify said expenditure? ix) Whether Tribunal was legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 3,49,57,657/- specifically when assessee failed to prove that deduction claimed u/s 43B for leave encashment, water cess, bonus, gratuity etc. on payment basis, has been disallowed in earlier years? x) Whether Tribunal was legally justified in deleting addition of Rs. 89,41,361/- made on account of brokerage and consultancy expenses u/s 40A(2)(b), paid to M/s Zuari Investment Ltd. specifically when expenses were in respect of shipping division whose income was offered on basis of Tonnage scheme hence no expenses could be allowed separately and such expenditure was also falling within ambit of section 35D? xi) Whether Tribunal was legally justified in deleting addition of Rs. 24,39,596/- made on account of software consultancy charges u/s 40A(2)(b), paid to M/s ISG Novasoft Technology (3 of 3) [ITA-129/2017] specifically when expenses were in respect of shipping division whose income was offered on basis of Tonnage scheme so therefore no expenses could be allowed separately and such expenditure was falling within ambit of section 35D? issue no. 1 to 6 are covered by decision of this Court in case of same assessee in Tax Appeal No. 76/2015 decided on 15th May, 2017. With regard to issue no. 7 to 11, in view of concurrent finding and more particularly, Tribunal while discussing issues has gone into detail facts as well as law, we find no infirmity in order. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises. Hence, appeal stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH)J. (K.S.JHAVERI)J. A.Sharma/141 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kota v. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd