Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Kolhapur v. Chaphalkar Brothers
[Citation -2017-LL-1207-22]

Citation 2017-LL-1207-22
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Kolhapur
Respondent Name Chaphalkar Brothers
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 07/12/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags construction expenditure • industrial development • revenue expenditure • incentive scheme • state government • capital expenses • capital receipt • revenue receipt • subsidy scheme • surplus funds • entertainment duty • capital or revenue receipt
Bot Summary: In the light of the above discussion, we can therefore summarize our conclusion that broadly speaking the subsidy can be of two types: for the purpose of helping the growth 8 of an industry; For the purpose of supplementing the profits of an industry. The High Court's judgment dated 08.06.2011 referred to two Supreme Court judgments, namely, Sahney Steel Press Works Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, A.P.-I, Hyderabad 1997 SCC 765 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited 2008 SCC 337 and after discussing these judgments, held: Since the object of subsidy was to promote construction of multiplex theatre complexes, in our opinion, receipt of subsidy would be on capital account. According to him, there may be no doubt that the large object said to be achieved in the grant of subsidy by way of complete and then partial roll back of entertainment duty may be in the nature of subsidy relating to complexes which are highly capital intensive and require Government support. According to him, the fact that the subsidy kicks in only after the multiplexes started functioning and issued tickets on which entertainment duty is then waived, would show that in reality what has already been set up is not the immediate object of the subsidy but that it is really in the nature of a helping hand for running of the day to-day business of the multiplexes. The source of funds for the scheme and the form of the scheme are irrelevant and if it is clear that the purpose is in order that capital expenses be met out of the subsidy granted in the scheme, then the object of the scheme points to receipt of funds being capital in nature. What is important for our purpose is the fact that in para 18 of that judgment, the test of whether the receipt of subsidy is capital or revenue is stated as follows:- If any subsidy is given, the character of the subsidy in the hands of the recipient - whether revenue or capital - will have to be determined by having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. 20 While considering the scheme of refund of excise duty and interest subsidy in that case, it was held that the scheme was capital in nature, despite the fact that the incentives were not available unless and until commercial production has started, and that the incentives in the form of excise duty or interest subsidy were not given to the assessee expressly for the purpose of purchasing capital assets or for the purpose of purchasing machinery.


1 REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6513-6514 OF 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I, KOLHAPUR ... Appellant(s) Versus M/S. CHAPHALKAR BROTHERS PUNE ... Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6511 OF 2012, 6512 OF 2012, 3362 of 2015, 10803 of 2013, 3500 of 2016, 4650 of 2016, 9320 of 2017, 11203 of 2017, 11204 of 2017 12442 of 2017, 15565 of 2017 and Civil Appeal No.21853 of 2017 @ SLP(C) NO. 6010 of 2014 JUDGMENT HON'BLE R.F.NARIMAN,J. Leave granted. present appeals arise from batch of judgments dealing with cases which come from Maharashtra and West Bengal. Insofar as civil appeals relating to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SHASHI SAREEN Maharashtra are concerned, subsidy scheme of Date: 2017.12.13 16:59:06 IST Reason: State Government took form of exemption of entertainment duty in Multiplex Theatre Complexes newly 2 set up, for period of three years, and thereafter payment of entertainment duty @ 25% for subsequent two years. object of introducing necessary amendments in Bombay Entertainments Duty Act to effectuate aforesaid subsidy scheme was first done by way of ordinance before 4th December, 2001, which ultimately became part of Amendment Act. statement of objects and reasons for introducing aforesaid scheme reads as follows: 1. As result of onslaught of Cable Television and advancement in field of Information Technology, average occupancy in cinema theatres has fallen considerably and hardly any new theatres have been started in recent past. Public at large these days prefer to see movies at home. Keeping in view this scenario, concept of Complete Family Entertainment Centre, more popularly known as Multiplex Theatre Complex has emerged. These Multiplex Theatre Complexes offer various entertainment facilities for entire family under single roof. However, these complexes are highly capital intensive, their gestation period is also quite long, and therefore, need Government support and incentive in entertainment duty. 2. Government has, therefore, with view to commemorate birth centenary of Chitrapati late Shri V.Shantaram, decided to grant concession in 3 entertainment duty to Multiplex Theatre Complexes to promote construction of new cinema houses in State. 3. In accordance with above decision, Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 was modified as required and Bombay Entertainment Duty (Revised) Act, 2001 (Government Order: ENT-1099/C.R.765/T-1) was brought into force on 17th August, 2001. said scheme was thereafter set out in form of amendment to Statute contained in Section 3(13) sub-clause (c) after which new sub-clause f(1) was set out which reads as follows: (f-1) Multiplex Theatre Complex means entertainment cum-cultural centre which provides- (i) within limits of Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai not less than four theatres in complex with minimum total seating capacity of 1,250; and (ii) any where else in State, not less than three theatres in complex with minimum total seating capacity of 1,000. And such other incidental and connected matters and facilities, and multi entertainment activities and other facilities as specified by Government in this behalf, by Notification in official Gazette; 4 In addition, new sub-clause (13) was also inserted after Section 3 which reads as follows: 13) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, but subject to terms and conditions specified in clause (b), on and with effect from date of coming into force of Bombay Entertainments Duty (Amendment) Act, 2001, there shall be levied and collected by State Government from proprietor of Multiplex Theatre Complex duty in respect of any such complex as follows,namely:- (i) for first three years from date of commencement of Multiplex Theatre complex, no duty. (ii) for subsequent two years, at rate of twenty five percent of rate of duty leviable under clause (b) and clause (c) of sub-section (1) or, as case may be, sub section (3); (iii) from sixth year, full amount of duty leviable at rate specified in clause (b) and clause (c) of sub-section (1) or, as case may be sub-Section (3). Provided that, duty leviable shall also be subject to provisions of sub-section (2), wherever applicable 5 Explanation-For purpose of this sub-section: (i) date on which Multiplex Theatre complex is opened to public for admission shall be deemed to be date of commencement of Multiplex Theatre Complex; (ii) change in management of Multiplex Theatre Complex, or change in name of complex shall not be construed as fresh commencement of Multiplex Theatre Compex. (b) concession in duty as provided under clause (a) shall be available to proprietor of Multiplex Theatre Complex subject to following terms and conditions, namely;- (i) proprietor shall not charge less payment for admission than prevailing highest rate for admission at any given time, in any of cinema theatres in District in which complex is situated, till period of concession under clause (a) is over; (ii) one theatre in complex shall be reserved for total period of not less than one month, in year, exclusively for Marathi Cinemas; (iii) proprietor of complex shall not levy service charge, till period of concession under clause (a) is over. After concession period is over, proprietor may levy service charges as specified in second proviso to clause (b) of section 2; 6 (iv) Multiplex Theatre Complex shall be continued continuously for ten years; (v) no facilities provided in complex as specified in notification issued under clause (I-a) of Section 2, shall be discontinued or curtailed, without prior permission of Government. (c) In case of violation of condition (iv) or (v) of clause (b), concession shall be liable to be withdrawn and duty shall be levied and collected from date of commencement at Multiplex Theatre Complex, at rate specified in clause (b) and clause (c) of sub-section (1) or, as case may be, sub-section (3), along with interest leviable at rate specified in section 9B. (d) If any existing cinema theatre is converted into Multiplex Theatre Complex, by not reducing its original seating capacity and by complying with provisions of clause (f-a) of section 2, converted theatre shall also be entitled to concession in duty as specified in clause (a), subject to terms and conditions specified in clause (b). To take facts of one of matters before us, namely, Civil Appeal Nos. 6513-6514 of 2012, assessment order in that case (dated 21.01.2006) found that aforesaid scheme was really to support on-going activities of multiplex and not for its 7 construction. Since scheme took form of charge on gross value of ticket and contributed towards day to-day running expenses, Assessment Officer held that it was in nature of revenue receipt. appeal filed before Commissioner met with same fate and was dismissed substantially on same reasoning. However, Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal by its judgment dated 30.06.2009, went into matter in some detail, and after setting out object of aforesaid scheme went on to hold as follows: 9.2 One aspect of scheme in question is undisputed; after considering clauses of scheme, that scheme do not provide any assistance for reimbursement of day to day revenue expenditure but scheme is meant to build up and to promote new multiplex cinema halls which are nothing but for construction purpose hence reimbursement is to cover-up capital expenditure. xxxxxxxxx 10. In light of above discussion, we can therefore summarize our conclusion that broadly speaking subsidy can be of two types: (i) for purpose of helping growth 8 of industry; (ii) For purpose of supplementing profits of industry. 10.1 To ascertain whether in particular case subsidy in question fall under category (I) or (ii) one has to carefully examine form as well as substance of impugned scheme. We have done that exercise, and on close examination undisputedly it was noticed that scheme in question had fallen in first category i.e. for purpose of helping growth of industry. Though collection was in form of entertainment Duty via sale of tickets for limited period but its utilization was predetermined and granted with assurance to cover up cost of construction. Once it is demonstrated before us that too undisputedly that it was not attributed in any manner towards supplementing of day-to-day expenditure or in furtherance of profits than it cannot be said to be in character of revenue receipt. Contrary to this it was in nature of capital receipt being incentive to supplement construction expenditure of new set up of Multiplexes hence in nature of capital receipt. To arrive at this conclusion we draw support from plethora of decisions, few of them already cited above. With result we decide ground in favour of assessee. 9 appeal before High Court was dismissed. High Court's judgment dated 08.06.2011 referred to two Supreme Court judgments, namely, Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, A.P.-I, Hyderabad 1997 (7) SCC 765 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited 2008 (9) SCC 337 and after discussing these judgments, held: Since object of subsidy was to promote construction of multiplex theatre complexes, in our opinion, receipt of subsidy would be on capital account. fact that subsidy was not meant for repaying loan taken for construction of multiplexes cannot be ground to hold that subsidy receipt was on revenue account, because, if object of scheme was to promote cinema houses by constructing multiplex theatres, then irrespective of fact that multiplexes have been constructed out of own funds or borrowed funds, receipt of subsidy would be on capital account. In light of aforesaid objects of Scheme framed by State Government, decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that amount of subsidy received by assessee is on capital account cannot be faulted. Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs 10 Shri P.S.Narasimha, learned ASG appearing on behalf of Revenue, assails judgment passed by High Court. According to him, there may be no doubt that large object said to be achieved in grant of subsidy by way of complete and then partial roll back of entertainment duty may be in nature of subsidy relating to complexes which are highly capital intensive and require Government support. But according to him, fact that subsidy kicks in only after multiplexes started functioning and issued tickets on which entertainment duty is then waived, would show that in reality what has already been set up is not immediate object of subsidy but that it is really in nature of helping hand for running of day to-day business of multiplexes. He relied heavily upon judgment in Sahney Steel (supra) to buttress his submission and stated that on facts, this was case similar to Sahney Steel. On other hand, he distinguished judgment in Ponni Sugars (supra) stating that on facts of that case, in paragraph 10, in particular, it was very clearly held that benefit of scheme had to be utilised only for re-payment of loan. Therefore, it was obviously capital in nature, and not revenue. 11 On other hand, Shri Jahangir Mistry, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents, and Shri S.Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for some of respondents, have argued that if Sahney Steel is to be read in its entirety, judgment on facts supports proposition that it is only purpose of scheme that is test for finding out whether scheme is, in fact, capital or revenue in nature. source of funds for scheme and form of scheme are irrelevant and if it is clear that purpose is in order that capital expenses be met out of subsidy granted in scheme, then object of scheme points to receipt of funds being capital in nature. They both stressed fact that statement of object and reasons specifically state that multiplexes are truly capital intensive, their period is long and, therefore, they need government support. They also relied upon statement that grant of concession to such multiplexes was to promote construction of new cinema houses in State. Having heard learned counsel for both sides, it becomes necessary to analyze judgments relied upon. In Sahney Steel (supra), notification issued by Andhra Pradesh Government was concerned with certain facilities and incentives which were to be given to all 12 new industrial undertakings which commenced production on or after 01.01.1969 with investment capital not exceeding Rs. 5 crores. incentives were to be allowed for period of five years from date of commencement of production. Concession was also available for subsequent expansion of 50% and above. incentives were in form of, inter alia, refund of sale tax on raw materials, machinery and finished goods. This Court held, on facts of that case, that as no financial assistance was granted to assessee for setting up of industry, idea of subsidy scheme was to provide helping hand for five years in order to enable industry to be viable and competent. In doing this, in paragraph 9 of said judgment, test stated by Viscount Simon in Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board v. Ostime (1946) 1 ALL ER 668 was referred to. In paragraph 10, Court went on to apply aforesaid test and stated that, since funds were made available to assessee to assist it in carrying on its trade and business, there can be little doubt that object of various assistances under subsidy scheme was to enable assessee to run business more profitably . judgment of House of Lords in Seaham Harbour Dock Co. Vs. Crook, 16 TC 333 was then referred 13 to and distinguished. What is important for our purpose is fact that in para 18 of that judgment, test of whether receipt of subsidy is capital or revenue is stated as follows:- If any subsidy is given, character of subsidy in hands of recipient - whether revenue or capital - will have to be determined by having regard to purpose for which subsidy is given. If it is given by way of assistance to assessee in carrying on of his trade or business, it has to be treated as trading receipt. source of fund is quite immaterial. Court went on, thereafter, to give telling example in para 19 of aforesaid judgment, which is set out herein below:- For example, if scheme was that assessee will be given refund of sales tax on purchase of machinery as well as on raw materials to enable assessee to acquire new plants and machinery for further expansion of its manufacturing capacity in backward area, entire subsidy must be held to be capital receipt in hands of assessee. It will not be open to Revenue to contend that refund of sales tax paid on raw materials or finished products must be treated as revenue receipt in hands of assessee. In both cases, Government is paying out of public funds to assessee for definite purpose. If purpose is to help assessee to set up its business or complete project as 14 in Seaham Harbour Dock Co. case, monies must be treated as to have been received for capital purpose. But if monies are given to assessee for assisting him in carrying out business operation and money is given only after and conditional upon commencement of production, such subsidies must be treated as assistance for purpose of trade. Thereafter, Court went on to discuss certain High Court judgments and, in para 30, specifically referred to Bombay High Court judgment in Sadichha Chitra's case (1991) 189 ITR 774 and approved view taken by Bombay and Kerala High Courts as they accorded with principle laid down in Seaham Harbour Dock Co. case. facts in Sahney steel were distinguished from facts of Bombay and Kerala judgments as follows:- In case before us, subsidies have not been granted for production of or bringing into existence any new asset. subsidies were granted year after year only after setting up of new industry and commencement of production. Such subsidy could only be treated as assistance given for purpose of carrying on of business of assessee. Applying test of Viscount Simon in case of Ostime it must be held that these subsidies are of revenue character and will have to be taxed accordingly. 15 next important judgment that was referred to is judgment in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited (supra). On facts in that case, incentives given under scheme relating to sugar production were in nature of higher free sale sugar quota, and also allowing manufacturer to collect excise duty on sale price of free sale sugar in excess of normal quota but to pay to government only excise duty payable on price of levy sugar. Clause 7 of aforesaid scheme was set out in para 3 of judgment as follows:- beneficiaries of incentive scheme shall ensure that surplus funds generated through sale of incentive sugar are utilised for repayment of term loans, if any, outstanding from Central financial institutions. sugar factories should submit utilisation certificates annually from Chartered/Cost Accountant, holding certificate of practice. Utilisation certificate in respect of each sugar season during incentive period should be furnished on or before 31st December of succeeding year. Failure to submit utilisation certificate within stipulated time may result not only in termination of release of incentive free sale quota, but also in recovery of incentive free sale releases already made, by resorting to adjustment from free sale releases of future years. 16 Court then referred to background of incentive scheme and to fact that Sampat Committee was set up to examine question relating to economic viability of new sugar factories. Court then found in para 9 of judgment that Sampat Committee referred to fact that increase in cost of new sugar factories was because of increase in cost of plant and machinery. Committee then stated that five possible incentives for making sugar plant economically viable could be provided. It is two of such incentives referred to that was subject-matter for decision before this Court. In Para 10 this Court found: We have examined in this case 1980 and 1987 Schemes. Essentially all four Schemes are similar except in matter of details. Four factors exist in said Schemes, which are as follows: (i) Benefit of incentive subsidy was available only to new units and to substantially expanded units, not to supplement trade receipts. (ii) minimum investment specified was Rs. 4 crores for new units and Rs. 2 crores for expansion units. (ii) Increase in free sale sugar quota depended upon increase in production capacity. In other words, extent of increase of free sale sugar quota depended upon increase in production capacity. (iv) benefit of Scheme had to be utilised 17 only for repayment of term loans. After discussing judgment in Sahney Steel case, this Court then held: importance of judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel case lies in fact that it has discussed and analysed entire case law and it has laid down basic test to applied in judging character of subsidy. test is that character of receipt in hands of assessee has to be determined with respect to purpose for which subsidy is given. In other words, in such cases, one has to apply purpose test. point of time at which subsidy is paid is not relevant. source is immaterial. form of subsidy is immaterial. main eligibility condition in Scheme with which we are concerned in this case is that incentive must be utilised for repayment of loans taken by assessee to set up new units or for substantial expansion of existing units. On this aspect there is no dispute. If object of Subsidy Scheme was to enable assessee to run business more profitably then receipt is on revenue account. On other hand, if object of assistance under Subsidy Scheme was to enable assessee to set up new unit or to expand existing unit then receipt of subsidy was on capital account. Therefore, it is object for which subsidy/assistance is given which determines nature of incentive subsidy. form of mechanism through which subsidy is given is 18 irrelevant. Sahney Steel was distinguished, in para 16 by then stating that this Court found that assessee was free to use money in its business entirely as it liked. Finally, it was found that, applying test of purpose, Court was satisfied that payment received by assessee under scheme was not in nature of helping hand to trade but was capital in nature. What is important from ratio of this judgment is fact that Sahney Steel was followed and test laid down was purpose test . It was specifically held that point of time at which subsidy is paid is not relevant; source of subsidy is immaterial; form of subsidy is equally immaterial. Applying aforesaid test contained in both Sahney Steel as well as Ponni Sugar, we are of view that object, as stated in statement of objects and reasons, of amendment ordinance was that since average occupancy in cinema theatres has fallen considerably and hardly any new theatres have been started in recent past, concept of Complete Family Entertainment Centre, more popularly known as Multiplex Theatre Complex, has emerged. These complexes offer various entertainment facilities for entire family as whole. It was noticed that these complexes 19 are highly capital intensive and their gestation period is quite long and therefore, they need Government support in form of incentives qua entertainment duty. It was also added that government with view to commemorate birth centenary of late Shri V. Shantaram decided to grant concession in entertainment duty to Multiplex Theatre Complexes to promote construction of new cinema houses in State. aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. object of grant of subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for period of three years and partial remission for period of two years should go towards helping industry to set up such highly capital intensive entertainment centers. This being case, it is difficult to accept Mr. Narasimha's argument that it is only immediate object and not larger object which must be kept in mind in that subsidy scheme kicks in only post construction, that is when cinema tickets are actually sold. We hasten to add that object of scheme is only one -there is no larger or immediate object. That object is carried out in particular manner is irrelevant, as has been held in both Ponni Sugar and Sahney Steel. Mr. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel, also sought to rely upon judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Shri Balaji Alloys vs. C.I.T. (2011) 333 I.T.R. 335. 20 While considering scheme of refund of excise duty and interest subsidy in that case, it was held that scheme was capital in nature, despite fact that incentives were not available unless and until commercial production has started, and that incentives in form of excise duty or interest subsidy were not given to assessee expressly for purpose of purchasing capital assets or for purpose of purchasing machinery. After setting out both Supreme Court judgments referred to hereinabove, High Court found that concessions were issued in order to achieve twin objects of acceleration of industrial development in State of Jammu and Kashmir and generation of employment in said State. Thus considered, it was obvious that incentives would have to be held capital and not revenue. Mr. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel, pointed out that by order dated 19.04.2016, this Court stated that issue raised in those appeals was covered, inter alia, by judgment in Ponni Sugars, and appeals were, therefore, dismissed. We have no hesitation in holding that finding of Jammu and Kashmir High Court on facts of incentive subsidy contained in that case is absolutely correct. In that once object of subsidy was to industrialize State and to generate employment in State, fact that subsidy took particular form 21 and fact that it was granted only after commencement of production would make no difference. In coming to West Bengal cases, we find that West Bengal Finance Act, 2003 which amended Bengal Amusements Tax Act of 1922 also provided: Bengal Amusements Tax Act, 1922. provision seeks to provide, in order to encourage development of multiplex theatre complex, very modern and highly capital-intensive entertainment centre, financial assistance to proprietors of such complex by allowing them to retain, by way of subsidy, amount of entertainment tax collected against value of ticket for admission to such multiplex theatre complex for period not exceeding four years; Since subsidy scheme in West Bengal case is similar to scheme in Maharashtra case being to encourage development of Multiplex Theatre Complexes which are capital intensive in nature, and since subsidy scheme in that case is also similar to Maharashtra cases, in that amount of entertainment tax collected was to be retained by new Multiplex Theatre Complexes for period not exceeding four years, we are of view that West Bengal cases must follow judgment that has been just delivered in Maharashtra case. 22 Accordingly, appeals filed by Department are dismissed. ....................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) .....................J. (NAVIN SINHA) New Delhi, Dated: 7th December, 2017. 23 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.12 SECTION IX SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 6513-6514/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLHAPUR Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S CHAPHALKAR BROTHERS PUNE Respondent(s) (AT TOP ) WITH C.A. No. 3500/2016 (III) C.A. No. 5506/2017 (III) C.A. No. 5505/2017 (III) C.A. No. 5504/2017 (III) C.A. No. 4650/2016 (III) C.A. No. 6228/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6227/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6226/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8119/2013 (III) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 1/2013) C.A. No. 10512/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8708/2013 (III) C.A. No. 8886/2016 (III) SLP(C) No. 6010/2014 (IX) ((As per court order dated 24.02.2014 "tag with civil appeal nos. 6513-14 of 2012.)) C.A. No. 3362/2015 (III) C.A. No. 10513/2013 (III) C.A. No. 10803/2013 (III) C.A. No. 6511/2012 (IX) 24 C.A. No. 6512/2012 (IX) C.A. No. 9320/2017 (III) (Diary No. 15595/2017 arising out relied upon judgment is similar to present case) C.A. No. 11204/2017 (III) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 61559/2017) C.A. No. 10450/2017 (III) (IA No.62911/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.62918/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) C.A. No. 11203/2017 (III) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 50626/2017) C.A. No. 9827/2017 (III) (IA No.56899/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) C.A. No. 12442/2017 (III) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.78519/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) C.A. No. 15565/2017 (III) ( IA No.88275/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.88282/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 07-12-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Appellant(s) Mr. P.S.Narasimha, ASG, Mr. K.Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. S.Ganesh, Sr. Adv. MS. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Rony O.John, Adv. Mr. Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Jahangir Mistry, Sr. Adv. Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv. 25 Mr. Rony O.John, Adv. Mr. Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv. Ms. Shweta Kabra, Adv. M/s. Khaitan & CO. Mr. Jahangir Mistry, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhas Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR Mr. R.P.Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR Mr. K.V.Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Amrita Panda, Adv. Mr. Debesh Panda, Adv. Mr. R.P.Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Rituraj Gupta, Adv. MR. Divyam Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR Mr. Ramesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Deshmukh, Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Civil Appeal Nos. 6513-6514 of 2012, 6511 of 2012, 6512 of 2012, 3362 of 2015, 10803 of 2013, 3500 of 2016, 4650 of 2016, 9320 of 2017, 11203 of 2017, 11204 of 2017, 12442 of 2017, 15565 of 2017 and SLP(C) Nos. 6010 of 2014: Delay condoned. Leave granted. appeals are dismissed in terms of signed reportable judgment. De-tag: Civil Appeal Nos. 8886 of 2016, 5506 of 2017, 5505 of 26 2017, 5504 of 2017 SLP(C) Nos. 30728-30732 of 2017: Taken on Board. List in 2nd week of January, 2018. Civil Appeal Nos. 6228 of 2013, 6227 of 2013, 6226 of 2013,8119 of 203, 10512 of 2013, 8708 of 2013, 10513 of 2013, 9827 of 2017 and 10450 of 2017: List these matters in 2nd week of January, 2018. (SHASHI SAREEN) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER (Signed reportable judgment is placed on file) Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Kolhapur v. Chaphalkar Brother
Report Error