COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THOMSON PRESS INDIA LTD.

ITA - 48 / 2002HC Delhi29 July 20021 pages

For Petitioner: SC SHARMA

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal and framed substantial questions of law, indicating a prima facie view that the ITAT's order might be erroneous. However, the judgment does not record the ITAT's reasoning for allowing depreciation and investment allowance on the foreign exchange fluctuation amount, nor does it provide the High Court's decision on the framed questions. The operative direction is to admit the appeal and list it for hearing along with other related appeals. No specific finding or relief was granted by the High Court in this order; it is purely procedural at this stage. The questions of law remain undecided by the High Court.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Thomson Press India Ltd (assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision to allow the assessee depreciation and investment allowance on a sum of Rs. 60,66,513/-, which arose due to an increased liability on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuations. The High Court admitted the appeal and framed substantial questions of law. The respondent/assessee did not appear despite service.

What were the issues?

The High Court framed two substantial questions of law for adjudication: 1. Whether, on a correct interpretation of Section 43(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on a sum of Rs. 60,66,513/-? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in allowing investment allowance at the rate of 20% on Rs. 60,66,513/-, being the increased liability on account of variation in foreign exchange rate fluctuation? The Revenue's contentions, as presented by Mr. R.D. Jolly, are implicitly that the ITAT erred in allowing depreciation and investment allowance on the foreign exchange fluctuation amount. The judgment records no arguments for the assessee as they did not appear.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43(A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 48/2002 COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ..... Petitioner Through Mr.R.D.Jolly with Mr.S.C.Sharma versus THOMSON PRESS INDIA LTD ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHARDA AGGARWAL

O R D E R ----------- 29.07.2002

Despite service no one appears for the respondent/assessee. We have accordingly heard Mr.Jolly, learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue. Admit. The following substantial questions of law are framed for adjudication. 1. "Whether on a correct interpretation of provisions of section 43 (A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on sum of Rs.60,66,513/-?

Whether the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case was justified in allowing investment allowance at the rate of 20% on Rs.60,66,513/- being the increased liability on account of variation in foreign exchange rate fluctuation?"

The appellant shall file within three months ten copies of the cyclostyled paper books, containing all documents on which reliance was placed before the Tribunal, including any order/orders, either in the case of the assessee itself or in case of any other assessee, which has been followed by the Tribunal. The appeal shall be heard in due course along with ITA Nos.7/2000 and 34/2000. D.K. JAIN, J

SHARDA AGGARWAL, J JULY 29, 2002 ps

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →