Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Berger Paints India Ltd vs C.I.T. Kolkata-Iv on 15 September, 2014
Bench: Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman
1
ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4093/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17/05/2012
in ITA No. 253/2003 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta)
BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
C.I.T. KOLKATA-IV & ANR. Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
Date : 15/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.
Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv.
Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.
Ms. Meera Mathur,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Solicitor General
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Three questions have been raised in the special leave petition, namely :-
Signature Not Verified
“(a) Deduction of excise duty and customs duty Digitally signed by Rajesh Dham Date: 2014.09.18 12:39:36 IST Reason: relatable to closing stock, amounting to Rs. 26,31,619/-?2
(b) Claim for deduction under Section 80-O on the basis of the amount received by the Petitioner in convertible foreign exchange in India, without deducting there-from the indirect foreign travel expenses incurred by the Petitioner?
(c) Delayed deposit to Employer and Employees contribution to Family Pension Fund?
Insofar as question (b) is concerned, Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-assessee, submits that petitioner is not desirous of pressing the same. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the view taken by the High Court insofar as question (b) is concerned.
As regards question (a), learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Solicitor General are ad idem that the above question is concluded by a decision of this Court in Berger Paints India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC) = (2004) 12 SCC 42, in favour of the assessee. The view taken by the High Court on this question is, accordingly, set 3 aside and it is held that the petitioner-assessee is entitled to deduction of excise duty and customs duty relateable to closing stock.
Insofar as question (c) is concerned, we find that there are divergent views of the High Courts and, therefore, it deserves to be considered. Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-assessee, does submit that question (c) is covered by a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). However, we find that applicability of the above judgment will have to be seen and the matter may require little hearing on question (c).
List the special leave petition for final disposal on a non-miscellaneous day for consideration of question (c) within three months.
(RAJESH DHAM) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER