Bombay High Court
Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 vs M/S.West Gujarat Expressway Ltd on 19 March, 2019
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sarang V. Kotwal
1 1-ITXA 610-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.610 OF 2016
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-14, Mumbai. ] ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd., Mumbau. ] ... Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant.
Mr. Madhur Agrawal i/b Mr. Sameer Dalal for Respondent.
CORAM :- AKIL KURESHI &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE :- 19 MARCH, 2019 P. C. :-
1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the Judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law :
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting addition on account of depreciation on toll road of Rs.40,12,50,880 ?
2. We note that the Revenue has suggested two more questions which read as under :
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting URS 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:22:23 ::: 2 1-ITXA 610-16.odt addition of interest income of Rs.1,34,59,582/- under the head Income from Other Sources without appreciating the fact that income is not derived from the business activity of the assessee company ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting addition of expenses incurred in relation to Increase in Authorised Share Capital of Rs.8,64,400 ?
3. Insofar as Question No.1 noted above is concerned, it arises out of the Revenue's contention that the interest income earned by the Assessee by investing surplus money for short duration, was not the business income of the Assessee company. Learned Counsel for the Revenue would contend that this issue is covered by the Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Karnal Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd.1 He further pointed out that the Tribunal, in the impugned Judgment, has referred to and relied upon the decision in case of this Assessee in earlier assessment years.
Though, the Revenue had filed Income Tax Appeal No.2657 of 2013 to challenge the Judgment of the Tribunal in the said case, the present issue was not raised in such Appeal. Under the circumstances, on this ground, this question is not entertained in the present Appeal.
1 [2000] 243 ITR 2
URS 2 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:22:23 :::
3 1-ITXA 610-16.odt
4. Insofar as the Question No.2 is concerned, we note that the amount involved is extremely small. Only on that ground, without entering into the controversy, this question is not entertained.
5. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Tribunal. This would enable the Tribunal to keep the papers and proceedings relevant to this Appeal available, to be produced when sought for by the Court.
6. Learned Counsel Mr. Agrawal waives service for the Respondent.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)
URS 3 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:22:23 :::