THE CIT,BOMBAY CITY V, vs. RICHARDSON HINDUSTAN LTD.

ITR/189/1993HC Bombay18 March 2009Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE F.I. REBELLO, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. MOHITE3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its judgment dated 18.3.2009, answered all three sub-questions of the reference in the affirmative and against the assessee. For question 1(a), concerning expenses for tools and implements, the Court referred to its prior judgment in Income Tax Reference No. 315 of 1988, which dealt with similar facts and the same assessee. The Court found that the 'tools and implements' related to distillation services provided through a distillation plant owned by the assessee, and for the reasons stated in the earlier judgment, the claim was rejected. Similarly, for question 1(b) regarding transportation services and question 1(c) concerning depreciation on distillation assets, the Court relied on its judgment in Income Tax Reference No. 3 of 1998, which also involved the same assessee and similar facts. In both instances, the Court reiterated the reasoning from the prior judgment, leading to the rejection of the assessee's claims for weighted deduction under Section 35C. The Income Tax Reference was disposed of with no orders as to costs.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai City 7, against Richardson Hindustan Ltd. The reference pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be related to prior judgments. The core issue is the assessee's claim for weighted deduction under Section 35C of the Income-tax Act. The dispute centers on expenses incurred for providing tools and implements to farmers (Rs. 2,07,069), transportation services to farmers (Rs. 43,525), and depreciation on distillation assets (Rs. 48,878). The Tribunal's decision on these claims is under challenge. The High Court is referring to its own previous judgments concerning the same assessee and similar facts.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee-company for weighted deduction under Section 35C on: (a) Expenses of Rs. 2,07,069/- incurred under the head provision of tools and implements for use by farmers. (b) Expenses of Rs. 43,525/- under the head transportation services provided to farmers. (c) Depreciation of Rs. 48,878/- on Distillation assets. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee claimed weighted deduction under Section 35C for the aforementioned expenses. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that these expenses were not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35C. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments beyond implicitly supporting the rejection of the assessee's claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35C, Section 156(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.189 OF 1993 The Commissioner of Income-tax ) Mumbai City 7, R.No.611, Aayakar ) Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 )..Applicant V/s. Richardson Hindustan Ltd., ) Tiecicon House, Dr.E.Moses Road ) Bombay-400 011 )..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the applicant. Mr.J.D.Mistry with Ms.Payal Parikh, Ms.Nikita Kadam i/by M & M Legal Venture for the respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 18.3.2009. Judgment :- (Per : R.S.Mohite,J) 1. The question of law referred to this Court under Section 156(1) of the Income-tax Act is as under :- 1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee-company for weighted deduction under section 35C on :- (a) Expenses of Rs.2,07,069/- incurred under the head provision of tools and implements for use by farmers ; (b) Expenses of Rs.43,525/- under the head transportation services provided to farmers ; (c) Depreciation of Rs.48,878/- on Distillation assets. 2. As regards question no.1(a), it is contended that the "tools and implements" as mentioned in the said question relates to distillation services through a distillation to plant owned and run by the CNR No : HCBM020047241993 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:49:01

: 2 : assessee. The question is covered by our judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.315 of 1988. In our said judgment and order, for the reasons given, we have decided the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. The said judgment and order is given in the reference concerning for the same assessee and arising out of similar set of facts. For the same reasons we answer question no.1(a) in the affirmative and against the assessee. 3. Question no.1(b) has been answered by us in a judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998. The said judgment also pertains to the same assessee and arose out of similar set of facts. In the circumstances, for the reasons mentioned in our aforesaid judgment and order, question no.1(b) is also answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 4. Question no.1(c) also has been answered by us in our judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998. For the same reasons the said question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 5. In view of the answers given above, the Income Tax Reference is disposed off with no orders as to costs. Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:49:01

: 3 : (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:49:01 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →