TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT] - there is no material produced by the Revenue to show that the transaction of sale and lease back was not genuine or was bogus – thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against Revenue. - T. C. (A). No. 44 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2014 - R. Sudhakar And G. M. Akbar Ali,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Joseph Kurian Standing Counsel ORDER (Delivered by R. Sudhakar, J.) The appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'A' Bench, dated 30.9.2013 made in ITA No.1965/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 1996-1997, by raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of depreciation, the assessee moved the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considering the nature of the sale and lease back agreement, namely, purchase of the machinery by the assessee on payment of sales tax; leasing of the machinery to the manufacturer after acquiring the ownership of the machinery by the assessee; and the payment of lease rental income by Hightemp Furnace Limited to the assessee, which is shown as business income of the assessee, was of the view that the words not for sale used in the central excise document was more to indicate that the machinery was not for sale to any third party, that is to say that it is not transferable to any other person than the manufacturer, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd disclosed the same as business income. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the assessee is the owner of the goods. It is another matter that the Central Excise document does not disclose sale. The excise duty is payable on manufacture. That is not the issue in the present case. That apart, there is no material produced by the Revenue to show that the transaction of sale and lease back was not genuine or was bogus, warranting interference with the concurrent findings arrived at both by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. 7. For the foregoing reasons, on the above stated facts, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration and we find no reason to differ with the concurrent findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
