THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE vs. M/S.MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/23/2015HC KeralaKLHC01025424201516 February 2015Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the printing activity of a newspaper publisher amounts to manufacturing. The Court agreed with the ratio of the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [(2013) 355 ITR 14 (Delhi)], which was also followed by the ITAT. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation. The High Court found no grounds to entertain the appeal filed by the Revenue. The operative direction was that the appeal filed by the Revenue fails and is dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode, filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, dated July 25, 2014. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee is M/s. Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Ltd. The core of the dispute revolves around whether the printing activity of a newspaper publisher constitutes manufacturing, which would entitle the assessee to additional depreciation. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the printing activity undertaken by a newspaper publisher qualifies as manufacturing activity for the purpose of granting additional depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the ITAT's decision was erroneous. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The Revenue relied on the High Court's decision in CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [(2013) 355 ITR 14 (Delhi)].

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/27TH MAGHA, 1936 ITA.No. 23 of 2015 () ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 104/COCH/2014 of I.T.A. TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-07-2014 (ASST. YEAR 2008-09) APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- M/S.MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD., M.J.KRISHNAMOHAN MEMORIAL BUILDING K.P.KESAVA MENON ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA 23/15 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2010. ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF CIT(A)'S ORDER DATED 19.12.2013. ANNEXURE-C : COPY OF ORDER OF ITAT KOCHI DATED 25.07.2014. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.HARILAL, JJ. .................................................................... ITA No.23 of 2015 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of February, 2015. J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue. 2.The short issue that arises for decision is as to whether printing activity of a news paper publisher would amount to manufacturing activity to make that assessee eligible for grant of additional depreciation. We see that the issue raised by the Revenue is directly covered against it by the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [(2013) 355 ITR 14 (Delhi)]. We are in complete agreement with the ratio of that decision, which has been rightly followed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal. This appeal, hence, fails. In the result, this appeal is dismissed in limine. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (K.HARILAL, JUDGE) jg

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →