The Commissioner of Income-tax, Goa v. Zuari Industries Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0102-6]

Citation 2020-LL-0102-6
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Goa
Respondent Name Zuari Industries Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 02/01/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags deferred revenue expenditure • amortised expense
Bot Summary: JUDGMENT: On 18th April, 2012 this Appeal was Admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that amount of Rs.1,15,26,656/- paid to Texmaco, as deferred revenue expenditure allowing the TXA No. 29/2012 2 payment to be amortized for period of eight years 2. Similar question arose in a connected Appeal being TXA NO. 51/2008. The parties agree that the decision in TXA No. 51/2008 shall govern the issue in the present Appeal also. In TXA 51/2008, which is disposed by a judgment of even date, we have answered the point no. The said decision would govern the present Appeal also. For the reasons mentioned in the judgment in TXA No. 51/2008, we pass the following order: The Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the ITAT to the extent of issue no.


IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax, having office at Aayakar Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa. Appellant Versus Zuari Industries Ltd., having office at Jaikisan Bhawan, Zuarinagar, Goa 403 726. . Respondent Ms. Amira Razaq, Standing Counsel for Appellant. Mr. Parikshit Sawant, Advocate for Respondent. Coram:- M.S. SONAK & C.V. BHADANG, JJ. RESERVED ON: 22nd November, 2019 PRONOUNCED ON: 2nd January, 2020 (Signed judgment is pronounced by M.S. Sonak, J. as per clause (i) of Rule 1 of Chapter XI of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules as C.V. Bhadang, J. is sitting at Mumbai.) JUDGMENT: (Per C.V. Bhadang, J.) On 18th April, 2012 this Appeal was Admitted on following substantial question of law: (I) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in holding that amount of Rs.1,15,26,656/- paid to Texmaco, as deferred revenue expenditure allowing TXA No. 29/2012 2 payment to be amortized for period of eight years ? 2. Similar question arose in connected Appeal being TXA NO. 51/2008. parties agree that decision in TXA No. 51/2008 shall govern issue in present Appeal also. In TXA 51/2008, which is disposed by judgment of even date, we have answered point no. (I) against appellant and in favour of assessee, while point no. (II) has been answered in favour of appellant and against assessee. said decision would govern present Appeal also. 3. For reasons mentioned in judgment in TXA No. 51/2008, we pass following order: Appeal is partly allowed. impugned order passed by ITAT to extent of issue no. (II) above, is hereby set aside. order passed by AO on aforesaid issue, as confirmed by CIT (Appeals) is hereby restored. In circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. C. V. BHADANG, J. M. S. SONAK, J EV Commissioner of Income-tax, Goa v. Zuari Industries Ltd
Report Error