Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 1 ... vs Essel Mining And Industries Limited Ay ... on 24 September, 2025

Author: M.S. Sonak

Bench: M.S. Sonak

                               27-ITXA-50-2024 (OS)+ 38-ITXA-63-2024.DOCX

                                                                               Mayur


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

               INCOME TAX APPEAL(IT) NO. 50 OF 2024

 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Central 1 Mumbai.                        ...Appellant
       Versus
 Essel Mining And Industries Limited
 Ay 2013-14                               ...Respondent
                       AND
           INCOME TAX APPEAL(IT) NO. 63 OF 2024

 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Central 1 Mumbai.                        ...Appellant
       Versus
 Essel Mining And Industries Limited
 Ay 2013-14                               ...Respondent
 ______________________________________________________
 Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, for Appellant.
 Mr. Madhur Agrawal, i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani, for Respondent.
 ______________________________________________________


                                 CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
                                         Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

DATED : 24 September 2025 P.C.:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both these appeals are required to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

"A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in confirming the CIT(A)'s order to restrict the disallowance Page 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:50:13 ::: 27-ITXA-50-2024 (OS)+ 38-ITXA-63-2024.DOCX u/s 14A to the assessee's earned dividend income without appreciating the Explanation to the Section 14A of the IT Act, 1961?

B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in confirming the CIT(A)'s order by relying on the decision of the co- ordinate Bench in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. without appreciating that the department has not accepted the decision of ITAT and has filed further appeals in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court?

C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in granting deduction under section 80-IA of the Act in respect of the Railway System, without appreciating the fact that the Rail System was not an infrastructure facility within the meaning of the explanation to Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act and that the assessee had not set up an enterprise to carry on the business of developing, operating and maintaining an infrastructure facility within the meaning of that section?"

3. Insofar as the question A of the appeal memo is concerned, the same stands subsumed by questions A framed by us above.

4. Insofar as question C and D of the appeal memo are concerned, we are satisfied that the same raised substantial question of law, in any event, similar questions have already been answered against the revenue.

5. In this regard, we refer to the decision in the case of Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Mumbai vs. M/s Dodson Hydropower Private Limited1 and connected matters in which it is held that receipts of the assessee out of the sale of carbon credits is to be considered as capital receipts and not revenue receipts.

. Order dated 27 February 2019 passed in ITXA No. 1820 of 2016.

27-ITXA-50-2024 (OS)+ 38-ITXA-63-2024.DOCX

6. Mr. Jasani waives service on behalf of the respondent.

(Advait M. Sethna, J) (M.S. Sonak, J.) Page 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:50:13 :::