Ajay Metachem Pvt. Ltd.,, Pune vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA.No.520/PN/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on two grounds, one for each appeal. Where the same assessee has raised an identical issue in earlier assessment years and the Tribunal has decided it against the assessee in those years, that decision is binding in a later year on the same issue, and the appellate authority's order following it is affirmed. Where a Special Bench of the Tribunal has decided a question of law, the decision is binding on a Tribunal bench, and once that decision has been affirmed by the jurisdictional High Court, the lower appellate authority's conclusion following it is to be upheld, absent any ground to interfere.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ACIT, Range-1, Pune. .. Respondent
ITA.No.775/PN/2013 (Asstt. Year : 2007-08)
Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Pune .. Appellant
Vs. ASK Chemicals foundry Solution India Private Limited (Formerly known As Ajay Metachem Private Limited), 72-76, Near Bharat Forge, Mundhwa, Pune-411036 PAN No.AACCA0713D .. Respondent
Assessee by : Shri Kishor Phadke Respondent by : Shri P.S. Naik Date of Hearing : 09-02-2015 Date of Pronouncement : 18-02-2015
ORDER
PER G.S. PANNU, AM:
The captioned appeals are cross appeals preferred by the assessee
and the Revenue for A.Y. 2007-08. These appeals were heard together and
are being disposed-off by way of a consolidated order for the sake of
convenience and brevity. The captioned cross appeals are directed against
the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Pune dated 08- 2
01-2013 which, in turn, has arisen from an order dated 30-12-2009 passed
by the Assessing Officer of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('in short "the Act").
2. In the appeal of the assessee, the solitary issue relates to addition of
Rs.34,50,000/- on account of expenses incurred for availing sales tax
deferral benefit by the assessee.
3. At the time of hearing, the Learned Representative submitted that
similar dispute came up for the earlier A.Yrs 2005-06 and 2006-07. The
assessee had claimed deduction of such expenses as a revenue expenditure
in a single year. Whereas the stand of the Department was that the same
are to be allowed in different years spread out for the period of the scheme.
In this connection, it was pointed out that for A.Yrs. 2005-06 and 2006-07
the appeal of the assessee travelled to the Tribunal which has since been
dismissed vide order in ITA Nos. 313 & 314/PN/2012 order dated 20-06-
2013. In view of the precedent in assessee's own case for A.Yrs. 2005-06
and 2006-07 (Supra), the impugned order of the CIT(A) is hereby affirmed.
Thus, on this aspect assessee fails.
4. In the appeal of the Revenue, the solitary issue is with regard to the
taxability of the surplus in the hands of the assessee on account of pre-
payment on Net Present Value (NPV) of the sales tax deferral loan. The
assessee was entitled to certain incentives under the Package Scheme of
Incentives provided by Maharashtra Government. In terms of the said
scheme, it repaid the unsecured loan availed from the Sales Tax
Department on the basis of the net present value of the loan. As a
consequent of the availment of such facility, the loan of Rs.1,84,00,000/-
was repaid at Rs.56,79,400/- and the balance of Rs.1,27,20,600/- was 3
treated by the assessee as a Capital receipt not chargeable to tax. The
Assessing Officer, however, treated the surplus of Rs.1,27,20,600/- as a
revenue receipt chargeable to tax. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition
following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of
Sulzer India Ltd. Vs. JCIT reported in 138 ITD 137 (Mum) (SB).
Accordingly, Revenue is in appeal before us.
5. At the time of hearing, it was a common point between the parties
that the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sulzer
India Ltd. (Supra) which has been relied upon by the CIT(A) has since
been affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its judgment in CIT
Vs. Sulzer India Ltd. dated 05-12-2014. In view of the aforesaid, we find
no reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) which is
hereby affirmed.
6. In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as that of the Revenue
are dismissed.
th Order pronounced on 18 February, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- ( R.S.PADVEKAR ) ( G.S.PANNU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER satish/sujeet Pune, dated 18th February, 2015
Copy of the order is forwarded to:
1. The Assessee 2. The Department 3. The CIT(A)-I, Pune. 4. The CIT-I, Pune. 5. The DR "A" Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File By Order
//True Copy// Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free