Calcutta High Court
Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 January, 2009
Author: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
1 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE I. T. A. No. 201 of 2001 Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd.
Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-12, Calcutta & Anr. BEFORE :
The Hon'ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose And The Hon'ble Justice Sankar Prasad Mitra ___________________________________________________________ Date: 28.01.2009 ___________________________________________________________ The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
"i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.6,12,009/- claimed by the assessee on foreign travel for the purposes of business of the assessee and whether such finding of the Learned Tribunal is sustainable in law and/or perverse?
ii) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.25,00,000/- paid by the assessee company to The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., on account of professional consultancy services rendered by the said The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. during the financial year 1989-1990 and whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable in law and/or perverse?
iii) Whether on a correct interpretation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act the learned Tribunal was justified in 2 sustaining the disallowance of Rs.15,74,849/- claimed by the assessee as a long term capital loss and whether the finding of the learned Tribunal in support of the said order is sustainable in law and/or perverse?
iv) Whether on a correct interpretation of the provision of section 80-HHC of the I. T. Act, the learned Tribunal was justified in directing to include all items including the amounts in respect of services, commission and allowances, warehouse income and recovery of establishment expenses excepting sales tax and excise duty in the total turnover for the purposes of computing the relief under the said section and whether the said finding of the learned Tribunal is sustainable in law?
v) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs.2,73,241/- incurred or repairs, rates and taxes and insurance in respect of transit flats which are otherwise allowable under sections 30 and 31 of the I. T. Act are disallowable by applying the provisions of section 37(4)?"
Since the question nos. (i), (ii), (iii), and (v) are really based on facts, in our considered opinion, it cannot be included or concluded as the substantial questions of law involved in this matter. Hence, we do not wish to answer those questions.
So far as the question no. (iv) is concerned, it appears to us that the Tribunal has remanded the matter back before the authority. The similar point has already been settled by the Apex Court in a decision reported in [2008] 297 ITR 38 (K. K. Doshi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax). Following the said decision this 3 Bench has also held in favour of the assessee in ITA No.172 of 2001 (IMC Limited vs. D. Comm. of I.T. Spec. Range - 14 Cal.).
In view of that since the matter has already been remanded back it is not necessary for this Bench to answer this question. The authority shall be at liberty to deal with the matter in accordance with law.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
( Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. ) ( Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. ) AKGoswami