COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.BHAGEERATHA ENGINEERING LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the applicable questions of law, as referred in ITA No. 12/2000, are to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This decision is based on the Court's prior judgment in ITR No. 264/1997, which dealt with similar principal points of reference concerning accounting standards and deferred payment arrangements. The Court noted that a few other questions were not pressed. After reviewing the record, the Court found that some questions did not actually arise for consideration, given the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the point is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal itself was dismissed.
What were the facts?
This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin, for the Assessment Year 1992-93. The appeal arises from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The Tribunal had referred to its earlier orders in ITA Nos. 82 and 91 (Coch)/1995, which were further referenced in ITR Nos. 193 to 197/1997. These latter references were disposed of by referring to a lead case, ITR No. 264/1997, concerning the same assessee for the Assessment Year 1986-87. The High Court notes that the questions of law in the present appeal substantially cover the principal points of reference decided in ITR No. 264/1997.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the questions of law referred in ITA No. 12/2000, concerning the adoption of accounting standards and the treatment of deferred payment arrangements, are to be answered in favour of the assessee or the Revenue, considering the High Court's prior decision in ITR No. 264/1997. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their counsel, implicitly supports the High Court's decision in ITR No. 264/1997, which answered the principal points of reference in their favour. They agree that the questions in the present appeal substantially cover those decided earlier. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through their counsel, is the appellant. They are challenging the ITAT's order. However, the judgment does not explicitly record specific arguments made by the Revenue for this particular appeal, beyond the fact that they are the appellant and the appeal is against the ITAT's order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T S.V. Bhatti, J. This appeal is at the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin for the Assessment Year 1992-93. 2. The Tribunal referred to its order in I.T.A. Nos.82 and 91 (Coch)/1995 dated 29.03.1995, against which reference is made in I.T.R. Nos.193 to 197/1997. It is noted that the I.T.R. Nos.193 to 197/1997 have been disposed of by referring to the lead case argued by the parties in I.T.R. 264/1997 of the same assessee for the year 1986-87. By a separate judgment in I.T.R. No.264/1997 questions have been answered in favour of assessee. The learned Counsel appearing for the Department and the Assessee would state that the main question arising for consideration in I.T.R. No.264/1997 is adoption of accounting standards, treatment of deferred payment arrangement etc. The questions of law now referred in the I.T.A.
-3- substantially cover the answer given by this Court on principle points of reference in I.T.R. No.264/1997 as well.
By referring to the answers given in I.T.R. No.264/1997, the applicable questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A few other questions are not pressed, and after perusing the record, we are of the view that questions in fact having regard to the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal do not arise for our consideration. The point is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. I.T.A. No.279/2009 is dismissed. Registry shall send the certified copy of this judgment to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jjj -4-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
