Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court

Cit Wb-I Cal vs Ispat Finance Ltd on 4 May, 2015

Author: Girish Chandra Gupta

Bench: Girish Chandra Gupta

ORDER SHEET


                          GA NO.4194 OF 2000
                          ITA NO.438 OF 2000
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     Special Jurisdiction(Income Tax)
                             ORIGINAL SIDE

                                                                         CIT WB-I CAL

                                                                                  Versus

                                                               ISPAT FINANCE LTD.


 BEFORE:

 The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA

 The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

 Date : 4th May, 2015.



                                       MR.M.P.AGARWAL, MR.S.N.DUTTA,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
                 MR.J.P.KHAITAN,SR.ADVOCATE, MR.S.DAS, MR.C.S.DAS, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT

The Court : The appeal was presented on 10th November, 2000. The appeal has not as yet been admitted. After a number of adjournments, the matter has been in the list and learned advocates of the parties are present. It appears that the subject matter of challenge is a judgment dated 9th May, 2000 pertaining to the assessment year 2 1989-90. The following two questions were suggested in the application for admission of the appeal.

"(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the adjustment of depreciation as made by the Assessing Officer was not in accordance with law?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has misread and misinterpreted section 115J(1A) and/or erred in not holding that the provisions of the Companies Act cannot override the provision of I.T.Act and Rules and the calculation of depreciation being not in conformity with the provision of Income Tax Act is not sustainable?"

Mr.Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that he is not pressing the question no.(b). In that view of the matter, what remains is question no.(a). Mr.Agarwal could not show us from the judgment of the learned Tribunal any finding that the order of the Assessing Officer was wrong. The Tribunal has not made any such finding so the question requiring answer as to whether the Tribunal was 3 justified in holding that the adjustment of depreciation made by the Assessing Officer was not in accordance with law, does not arise.

The subject matter of challenge before the learned Tribunal was the order of the C.I.T (Appeals). The sum total of the submissions as we understand is that the learned counsel for the appellant gave up the appeal. Since he gave up the appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sb.