Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. M/S Lilason Breweries Limited

PDF · subscribers
ITA/195/2010HC Madhya Pradesh23 April 2015Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjeev Tuli
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. This conclusion was reached because the issue involved had been answered by the Appellate Tribunal based on a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had been approved by the Supreme Court. The Court referenced a previous identical appeal (ITA No.194/2010) filed by the revenue against the same assessee, which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench on January 31, 2014, on the same grounds. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue is settled by a High Court decision that has received approval from the Supreme Court, and the Tribunal's order follows this precedent, then no substantial question of law arises for the High Court to consider under Section 260-A. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns an appeal filed by the revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal pertains to the same assessee, M/s Lila Sons Breweries Ltd., and involves identical questions of law as in a previous appeal, ITA No.194/2010. The previous appeal, between the same parties, was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on January 31, 2014. The ITAT had decided the issue based on a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration regarding the application of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the Appellate Tribunal's decision is based on a High Court judgment approved by the Supreme Court. Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not present arguments in this specific High Court appeal, as the matter was decided based on the prior dismissal of an identical appeal. However, the underlying ITAT decision was based on the Bombay High Court's judgment, which was approved by the Supreme Court, implying the assessee would have relied on this precedent. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the issue of Section 194C had been answered by the Appellate Tribunal based on a decision of the Bombay High Court, which was approved by the Apex Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration, warranting the dismissal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-73-2012 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs M/S LILA SONS BREWERIES LTD.) 23-04-2015 Shri Sanjay Lal for the appellant. This is an appeal filed by the revenue under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, and we find that with regard to the same question involved in these appeals, between the revenue and the same assessee/respondent, identical and similar case being ITA No.194/2010 has been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 31.1.2014. Vide order passed in ITA No.194/2010, the Bench in the aforesaid case has held as under: “ Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Since the issue of application of Section 194 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been answered by the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of the decision of the Bombay High Court which has been approved by the Apex Court, no substantial question arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”

As such, we see no reason to interfere in the matter. In this case also, the issue has been answered by the Appellate Tribunal based on the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which has been approved by the Supreme Court. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE (MOOL CHAND GARG) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →