Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-8 v. Reliance Foot Print Ltd - 2020-LL-0108-69

Citation	2020-LL-0108-69
Appellant Name	Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-8
Respondent Name	Reliance Foot Print Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	08/01/2020
Assessment Year	2010-11
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	substantial question of law • capital expenditure • project development • expenses incurred • development cost • books of account • capital or revenue expenditure • pre-operative period
Bot Summary:	The learned counsel for the Respondent has handed over copies of the decisions taken in the Respondent-Assessee s own case wherein the questions of law raised in the present Appeal have been considered. In this Appeal the Appellant-Revenue has raised the following questions as substantial question of law :- 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2020 09:51:40 ::: 41. Itxa 1535-17.doc Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble Tribunal has erred in deleting disallowance in respect to expenses incurred in the preoperative period towards the project development cost, the assessee had treated the same expenditure as revenue for I.T. purposes whereas for all other purposes and laws it has treated the expenditure as capital expenditure Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble Tribunal was justified in allowing the expenses incurred u/s. 37(1) of the Act, giving rise to a substantial question of law as envisaged by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT in 330 ITR(SC) 5. As regards the first question of law regarding the project development cost to be treated as capital expenditure or revenue the said question was considered in Income Tax Appeal No.892 of 2014 and Income Tax Appeal No.948 of 2014 and by order dated 5 July, 2017 the same has been held against the Appellant-Revenue. As regards the second question raised, it was considered and held against the Appellant-Revenue in Income Tax Appeal No.197 of 2017. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this Appeal.

IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1535 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 ..Appellant vs. M/s. Reliance Foot Print Ltd. ..Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant. Mr. P.C. Tripathi I/b. Mr. Raj Darak for Respondent. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 8 JANUARY 2020 P.C.:- Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. Appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2010-2011. 3. learned counsel for Respondent has handed over copies of decisions taken in Respondent-Assessee s own case wherein questions of law raised in present Appeal have been considered. 4. In this Appeal Appellant-Revenue has raised following questions as substantial question of law :- 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2020 09:51:40 ::: 41. itxa 1535-17.doc (A) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble Tribunal has erred in deleting disallowance in respect to expenses incurred in preoperative period towards project development cost, assessee had treated same expenditure as revenue for I.T. purposes whereas for all other purposes and laws it has treated expenditure as capital expenditure ? (B) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble Tribunal was justified in allowing expenses incurred u/s. 37(1) of Act without appreciating that admittedly and also as accounted by assessee in its books of account, expenses were preoperative in nature and hence not admissible as expenditure u/s. 37(1) of Act thereby allowing assessee undue benefit and inadmissible benefit u/s. 37(1) of Act, giving rise to substantial question of law as envisaged by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT in 330 ITR (1)(SC) ? 5. As regards first question of law regarding project development cost to be treated as capital expenditure or revenue said question was considered in Income Tax Appeal No.892 of 2014 and Income Tax Appeal No.948 of 2014 and by order dated 5 July, 2017 same has been held against Appellant-Revenue. 6. As regards second question raised, it was considered and held against Appellant-Revenue in Income Tax Appeal No.197 of 2017. 2/3 itxa 1535-17.doc 7. In circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this Appeal. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) 3/3 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-8 v. Reliance Foot Print Ltd

Metadata

Judgment