THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA 3 vs. M/S GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/147/2019HC GujaratGJHC24020833201926 August 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. RAO3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law proposed by the Revenue were no longer debatable. For questions 1 and 3, the Court referred to its prior decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 1360 of 2018. For question 2, the Court referred to its decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 146 of 2019. As none of the proposed questions were considered debatable, the Tax Appeal was dismissed. The specific reasoning for each of the ITAT's deletions is not elaborated upon in this judgment, as the High Court relied on its previous pronouncements on similar issues involving the same assessee.

What were the facts?

This Tax Appeal, filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara, is directed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench, dated September 27, 2018, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision to delete certain additions made to the assessee's income. The assessee is M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad is hearing the appeal.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide three substantial questions of law proposed by the Revenue: 1. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,42,80,892/- on account of consumption and replacement of stores and spares, treating it as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure, under Section 37(1) of the Act. 2. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting a disallowance of Rs. 16,42,56,000/- under Section 37(1) of the Act, representing contributions/donations to educational institutions, trusts, and local bodies. 3. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting a disallowance of Rs. 4,38,56,790/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, concerning commission payments to dealers, despite the Assessing Officer's view that Explanation (i) to Section 194H was correctly invoked. Assessee's arguments: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that the expenditure on stores and spares should be treated as capital expenditure, the donations were not allowable under Section 37(1), and the commission payments to dealers attracted disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) by invoking Explanation (i) to Section 194H.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 37(1),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194H

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/147/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 147 of 2019 ============================================= THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA 3 Versus M/S GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS LTD ============================================= Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MANISH J SHAH(1320) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date : 26/08/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

1.

This Tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat dated 27.09.2018 in the ITA No.1556/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court : “(a) Whether in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in C/TAXAP/147/2019 ORDER upholding the deletion of addition on account of disallowance of expenses on consumption and replacement of stores and spares of Rs.2,42,80,892/- treating the same as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure? (b) Whether in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act in respect of expenses being contribution / donation to educational institutions, trust, local bodies of Rs.16,42,56,000/-? (c) Whether in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) in respect of commission payment to dealers of Rs.4,38,56,790/- without appreciating that considering the nature of services rendered by the dealers to the assessee Company, the Assessing Officer had correctly made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act by invoking the provision of Explanation (i) to section 194H of the Act?”

3.

So far as the questions Nos.1 and 3 as proposed by the Revenue are concerned, the same are no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. in the Tax Appeal No.1360 of 2018. C/TAXAP/147/2019 ORDER

4.

So far as the question No.2 as proposed by the Revenue is concerned, this issue is also no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. in the Tax Appeal No.146 of 2019. 5. In view of the above, as none of the proposed questions are debatable, this Tax Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) Dolly

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →