Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 vs M/S Chambal Fertilizers And Chemicals ... on 5 March, 2019
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra
1
ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.9 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.4414/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-07-2018
in DBITA No.68/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For
Rajasthan At Jaipur)
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.34998/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING )
Date : 05-03-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv.
Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, Adv.
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv.
Ms. Saniya Scott, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rohit Jain, Adv.
Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR
Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Adv.
Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG has invited our attention to the questions which arose for consideration in D.B. ITA No.68 of 2018:
“1. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in Signature Not Verified allowing the deduction of Rs.86,08,460/- to the assessee against the sale proceeds of mining rights, without Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.03.06 17:23:04 IST Reason: affording any opportunity of hearing to the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46?2
2. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in restricting the disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs.37,65,316/- as against Rs.78,47,330/- made by the Assessing Officer specifically when there was no commercial expediency to make investment in subsidiary companies of the assessee company?
3. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs.11,10,98,825/- out of disallowance of interest of Rs.12,90,03,457/- being the interest in relation to divident income of Rs.4,89,31,413/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(35) and further directing the Assessing Officer for computing the interest for the period of NCD borrowing?
4. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.25,00,816/- made on account of prior period expenses specifically when the assessee failed to substantiate its claim that the liability of account of such expenses had been settled/crystallized during the year under consideration.” Delay condoned.
We reject the submission so far as first question is concerned and issue notice as regards Question Nos.2, 3 and 4, returnable in four weeks.
Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
List the matter on 08.04.2019.
(MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER