TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of this Court in CIT vs Raymond Ltd [2012 (4) TMI 127 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law Allowability of sum paid by the Assessee Company to Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board for setting up of Kangoo Power Sub-station - HELD THAT:- The revenue having accepted the decision of the Tribunal for assessment year 1999-00 on this issue by not having challenged the same, cannot now challenge the impugned order in the absence of any specific ground being made out justifying challenging the impugned order on this issue, when it is accepted for A.Y.1999-00. Accordingly, question G does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences Advocates ORDER P. C. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') challenges the order dated 30 January 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The appeal relates to the Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. The revenue urges the following substantial questions of law for our consideration : A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the road transport subsidy received by the Assessee company of ₹ 13,78,51,483/- was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt as held by the Assessing Officer ? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... structures amounting to ₹ 52,07,469/-? I. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in allowing of expenditure incurred on construction of stadium to ₹ 20,00,000/- 3. Regarding Question C: An identical question was raised by the revenue in its Appeal bearing No.1161 of 2013 in respect of the same respondent-assessee for the Assessment year 1999-00. This Court by an order dated 31st March 2015 dismissed an identical question. It is an agreed position between the parties that this question stands concluded against the revenue by virtue of the order dated 31 March 2015 of this Court. Accordingly, Question C does not give rise to substantial question of law. Hence not entertained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Regarding Question F: Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the above question was also a question raised by the revenue in its appeal being Income Tax Appeal No. 1161 of 2013 in respect of the same respondent- assessee relating to Assessment year 1999-00 and not entertained by an order dated 31 March 2015. This on the ground that the same is covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT vs Raymond Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No.1324 of 2010 rendered on 20 March 2012. In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence not entertained. 6. Regarding Question G: The impugned order of the Tribunal has dismissed the revenue's appeal before it by follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depreciation at 25% on the entire amount spent in the year on construction of temporary structures on client's land. (b) Being aggrieved the respondent-assessee carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A). By order dated 30th September 2004 the CIT (A) held that the expense of temporary structures were related to carrying on business and therefore was an integral part of profit earning process. It only enabled the respondentassessee to carry out its business more efficiently. The expenditure incurred by the appellant was only to set up a temporary arrangements and therefore allowable as revenue expenditure having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. (c) Being aggrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order of the Tribunal is a possible view in the facts of the case. Thus no substantial question of law arise for our consideration in Question H. Hence not entertained. 8. Regarding Question I: (a) The respondent- assessee had claimed as revenue expenditure of an amount of ₹ 20 lacs paid by the State Government for construction of a stadium. The Assessing Officer by his order dated 31st January 2003 disallowed the same on the ground that the construction of the stadium has no connection with the respondent's business. (b) In appeal the CIT (A) held that the respondent-assessee had two cement units with total capacity of two million tons in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Government of Himachal Pradesh had approached ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
