Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Commissioner Of Income Tax Ltu vs Reliance Industries Ltd on 15 January, 2019

Author: M.S. Sanklecha

Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S. Sanklecha

 Uday S. Jagtap                                            1024-16-ITXA-11==.doc



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                      INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1024 OF 2016

Commissioner of Income Tax-LTU                            .. Appellant

           v/s.

M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.                             .. Respondent

Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellant Mr. Jehangir Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Mr. P.C. Tripathi I/b Raj Darak for the respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. DATED : 15 th JANUARY, 2019 P.C.

1. This appeal is admitted for consideration on following question of law :-

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs.40,02,378/- recovered by way of penalties from contractors and cash discount of Rs.18,77,219/- arose out of business of the assessee and, therefore, 90% thereof was not required to be excluded from the net profit in order to compute "profits of the business" in term of Section 80HHC of the Act while computing assessee's book profit under Section 115JB of the Act?"

1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2019 23:20:09 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 1024-16-ITXA-11==.doc

2. We notice that the Revenue has raised an additional question, which reads as under :-

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in allowing commission / surcharge paid to State Oil Marketing Organization ("SOMO"), an Iraqui government Agency ignoring the UN-Constituted Volcker Committee report (India being a member state of the UN) which was prepared after due diligence and investigation of documents as well as personal interviews?"

3. However, in case of this very assessee in Income Tax Appeal No. 993 of 2016, we have considered this question but not entertained.

This additional question, therefore, is not entertained in this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service.

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.) 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2019 23:20:09 :::