Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-14 v. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd - 2019-LL-0917-92

Citation	2019-LL-0917-92
Appellant Name	Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-14
Respondent Name	Reliance Digital Retail Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	17/09/2019
Assessment Year	2009-10
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	project development • capital expenditure • expenses incurred • development cost • pre-operative period • revenue expenditure
Bot Summary:	P.C. : This appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenges the order dated 13 July 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The impugned order dated 13 July 2016 is in respect of assessment year 2009-10. Doc the books of accounts claimed it as capital expenditure and for taxation as revenue expenditure 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal is a common order disposing of two appeals one of which is filed by the assessee, the Respondent herein and the other is by Reliance Fresh Ltd. It is an undisputed position that the facts in both the cases are similar. Today, by a separate order, we have dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue being Income Tax Appeal No.985/2017 from the common impugned order dated 13 July 2016 to the extent it related the Respondent therein. Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant- Revenue very fairly states that the reasons indicated in our order passed today dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of Reliance Fresh Ltd. would equally apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, for the reasons recorded in the order passed today in Income Tax Appeal No.985/2017, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law.

IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 987 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-14. Appellant. V/s. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for Appellant. Mr.Madhu Agrawal with Mr.P.C.Tripathi i/b. Mr.Raj Darak for Respondents. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND NITIN JAMDAR, JJ. DATE : 17 September 2019. P.C. : This appeal under section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), challenges order dated 13 July 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). impugned order dated 13 July 2016 is in respect of assessment year 2009-10. 2. Revenue has urged following question of law for our consideration: Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, ITAT was justified in deleting disallowance made by AO of Rs.26.56 crore in respect of expenses incurred in preoperative period towards project development cost when claim of assessee is of dual nature that is in skn 2 987.17-itxa.doc books of accounts claimed it as capital expenditure and for taxation as revenue expenditure? 3. impugned order of Tribunal is common order disposing of two appeals one of which is filed by assessee, Respondent herein and other is by Reliance Fresh Ltd. It is undisputed position that facts in both cases are similar. Today, by separate order, we have dismissed appeal filed by Revenue being Income Tax Appeal No.985/2017 (C.I.T. v. Reliance Fresh Ltd.) from common impugned order dated 13 July 2016 to extent it related Respondent therein. It is also agreed position between parties that question raised herein is similar to one raised in above appeal. 4. Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Appellant- Revenue very fairly states that reasons indicated in our order passed today dismissing appeal filed by Revenue in case of Reliance Fresh Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.985/2017) would equally apply to facts of present case. 5. In view of above, for reasons recorded in order passed today in Income Tax Appeal No.985/2017, question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-14 v. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd

Metadata

Judgment