Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Khirkiya

PDF · subscribers
ITA/198/2009HC Madhya Pradesh09 October 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON1 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjeev Tuli
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Court observed that a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court had already considered and decided identical appeals between the same parties for the assessment year 2004-05 on 04.04.2013 in I.T.A. No. 190/2009. For the grounds and reasons already decided by the Court on that date, no further indulgence was warranted. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the basis of the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench. The specific findings on the depreciation and pension fund issues were not elaborated upon as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds of precedent.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Bhopal, against an order dated 24.04.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The dispute concerns the assessment year 2004-05. The primary issue is the disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets where the entire expenditure was claimed either in the current or an earlier financial year. A secondary issue relates to the disallowance of payment towards a pension fund by the assessee, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Khirkhiya, Harda. The High Court notes that a Coordinate Bench had previously dismissed identical appeals by the revenue for the same assessment year (2004-05) between the same parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT's order upholding the disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets, when the entire expenditure was claimed in the current or earlier financial year, is tenable? (Question of law) 2. Whether the ITAT's order concerning the disallowance of payment towards a pension fund by the assessee is tenable? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argues that depreciation should not be allowed if the entire cost of the fixed asset has been claimed as an expense in the current or prior financial year. The revenue also raises a question regarding the disallowance of payment towards a pension fund. The revenue relies on the grounds and reasons considered in previous identical appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No :: 198 / 2009

CIT, Bhopal Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi, Khirkhiya, Harda

09.10.2014. 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 2004-05, 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) (SANJAY YADAV)

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 →