Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited vs Commnr. Of Income Tax I on 18 February, 2020
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4088 OF 2016
M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4089 OF 2016
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4089 OF 2016
1. Two issues have been answered by the High Court vide impugned judgment, namely: -
(i) Whether on the facts and law, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that 90% of interest of Rs.11,86,000/-
received from customers on belated payments could not be reduced from ‘profit and gains of business’ under clause(baa) of Explanation below Section 80 HHC(4B) of I.t. Act when the same issue has been decided in favour of Revenue in the case of Malwa Cotton spinning Mills Ltd. In I.T.A. No.94 of 2006.
(ii) Whether on the facts and law, the Hon’ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction u/s 80M was to be allowed without allocating personal and administrative and financial expenses proportionately for computing net dividend income referred to in Section 80AA of the I.T. Act?
2. As regards the first issue, the Tribunal in its final order dated 27.06.2008 had observed thus: - Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2020.02.20
“We, therefore, keeping in view of the 17:42:21 IST Reason:
aforesaid application u/s 158A(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 moved by the assessee, decide the issue against the assessee with the rider 2 that whenever the issue is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court for the Assessment year 1998-99 that shall be applicable to this appeal also. If any objection is to be raised by the Department on the said application that can be raised within30 days. With these observations, the present issue is decided against the assessee.”
3. It is not in dispute that the stated issue in reference to Assessment Year 1998-1999 has been answered by the High Court on 05.09.2008. That decision having become final will apply proprio vigore to the subject assessment year i.e. 1996-1997, in terms of the afore- mentioned order of the Tribunal. We order accordingly.
4. As regards the second issue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had remitted the proceedings to the Assessing Officer with following observations: -
“The fourth ground of appeal is relating to deduction u/s 80-M. The issue is covered by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of PSIDC vs. DCIT, 103 ITJ 364 (Special Bench, Chandigarh). The learned counsel for the assessee has stated before us that he has no objection if actual expenditure, if any incurred for earning dividend income is deducted from the gross dividend receipt. We direct the Assessing Officer to work out the disallowance, if any.”
5. It is not in dispute that thereafter the Assessing Officer completed the assessment in terms of the remand order and challenge thereto before the Tribunal has also become final.
6. Be it noted that as regards the said claim, the 3 High Court had observed that the issue has been answered in favour of the Revenue in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others [1985] 47 CTR 349 (SC). It is for the Department to consider whether the assessment done after remand and culminated with the order of the Tribunal is in conformity with the said decision of the Supreme Court or otherwise.
7. Nothing more is required to be said as the appellant is content with the order passed by the Tribunal, which as of now has been allowed to become final by the Revenue-respondent.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of. CIVIL APPEAL NO.4088 OF 2016 In view of the order in the companion appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No.4089/2016 and for the same reasons, this appeal is also disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of.
..................,J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ..................,J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 18, 2020.
4
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 4088/2016
M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED Appellant(s)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 4089/2016 (IV)
Date : 18-02-2020 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI For Appellant(s) Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv.
Mr. Udit Naresh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, Adv. Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv.
Mr. Chakitan V.S. Papta, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
In view of the above, pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) (VIDYA NEGI)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)