Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Gairatganj

PDF · subscribers
ITA/185/2009HC Madhya Pradesh01 October 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON1 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjeev Tuli
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Court noted that a Coordinate Bench of the same Court had previously considered and dismissed identical appeals between the same parties for the assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No. 190/2009 on April 4, 2013. For the grounds and reasons already considered and decided in that prior judgment, the Court found no case for further indulgence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the basis of precedent. The specific findings on the disallowance of depreciation and pension fund payment are not detailed, as the dismissal was based on the earlier ruling.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the CIT, Bhopal, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated April 24, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2003-04, concerning an assessment made under Section 143(3). The core dispute revolves around the disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets where the entire expenditure for these assets was claimed either in the current or an earlier financial year. Additionally, a question regarding the disallowance of payment towards a pension fund by the assessee, Krishi Upaj Mandi Gairatganj, is also part of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT's order is tenable in law, specifically concerning the disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets when the entire expenditure was claimed in the current or earlier financial years, as per Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the disallowance of payment towards a pension fund by the assessee is justified. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the fact that the ITAT passed an order in favor of the assessee implies their arguments led to that outcome. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's primary contention is that depreciation should not be allowed on fixed assets when the entire expenditure has already been claimed. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments regarding the pension fund payment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 143(3),Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No :: 185 / 2009

CIT, Bhopal Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Gairatganj

01.10.2014. Shri Sanjay Lal for the appellant. This is revenue’s appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 calling in question tenability of order-dated 24.4.2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The dispute pertains to assessment made under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2003-04, and the substantial question of law pertains to dis- allowance of depreciation on fixed assets when the entire expenditure incurred towards purchase of fixed assets has been claimed in its entirety either in the current financial year or in the earlier year. That apart, certain question with regard dis-allowance of payment towards pension fund by the Krishi Upaj Mandi is the question proposed in this appeal. Between the same parties, the same question for the assessment year 2004-05 has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 4.4.2013, in I.T.A. No. 190/2009 and identical appeals filed by the revenue, has been dismissed by the Bench. For the grounds and reasons already considered and decided by this Court on 4.4.2013, in I.T.A. No. 190/2013 – between the same parties, no case is now made out for any further indulgence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) (S.K. GUPTA)

J U D G E J U D G E

Aks/-

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →