PROCTOR and GAMBLE INDIA LTD. vs. THE C.I.T.B.C-V.

ITR/518/1997HC Bombay18 March 2009Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE F.I. REBELLO, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. MOHITE2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered questions 1(a), 1(c), 1(d), and 1(e) in the affirmative and against the assessee. This decision was based on previous judgments and orders of the High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 315 of 1988 and Income Tax Reference No. 3 of 1998, which involved the same assessee and similar factual backgrounds. For question 1(b), concerning expenses on transportation services provided to farmers, the High Court also answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. This was in line with a judgment and order dated March 18, 2009, passed in Income Tax Reference No. 3 of 1998, where the same issue was decided in the affirmative. Consequently, the reference was disposed of with no orders as to costs. The ratio decidendi is that if similar issues concerning the same assessee have been decided by the High Court in prior references, those decisions will govern the present reference.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by M/s. Procter & Gamble India Ltd. (formerly Richardson Hindustan Ltd.) before the Bombay High Court. The reference concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be related to prior ITAT decisions. The core of the dispute revolves around the assessee's claim for weighted deduction under Section 35C of the Income Tax Act. The specific expenses under challenge include those related to distillation services, transportation services provided to farmers, and expenditures incurred for a Mentha Research Centre and Mentha Research Administrative Centre, including administrative services and depreciation on assets used for these purposes. The High Court is reviewing the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had rejected these claims.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following question 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) various expenses incurred on provision of Distillation services; (b) Expenses on transportation services provided to farmers; (c) Various expenses incurred under the head Mentha Research Centre and Mentha Research Administrative Centre including expenditure on Mentha Administration Services; (d) Expenses on distillation services including depreciation on assets used for distillation services; (e) Depreciation on assets used for Mentha Research Centre. **Assessee's Contentions:** The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the nature of the reference implies the assessee contended that these expenses qualified for weighted deduction under Section 35C. **Revenue's Contentions:** The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

35C

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.518 OF 1997 M/s.Procter & Gamble India Ltd., ) (previously known as Richardson ) Hindustan Ltd.) ‘Tieciond, Dr.E. ) Moses Road, Bombay-11 )..Applicant V/s. The Commissioner of Income-tax ) Bombay City-V, Bombay ) Bombay-400 011 )..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the respondent. Mr.J.D.Mistry with Ms.Payal Parikh, Ms.Nikita Kadam i/by M & M Legal Venture for the applicant. ---- 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) various expenses incurred on provision of Distillation services ; (b) Expenses on transportation services provided to farmers ; (c) Various expenses incurred under the head Mentha Research Centre and Mentha Research Administrative Centre including expenditure on Mentha Administration Services ; (d) Expenses on distillation services including depreciation on assets used for distillation CNR No : HCBM020065471997 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:49:05

: 2 : services ; (e) Depreciation on assets used for Mentha Research Centre. 2. In our view question nos.1(a), 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e) have been answered in the affirmative and against the assessee in view of the judgment and order passed in Income Tax Reference No.315 of 1988 and Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998 which concern the same assessee and arise from a similar background of facts. In the circumstances, the aforesaid questions are answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 3. In so far as question no.1(b) is concerned, the same is covered by a judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998 wherein we have answered the same in the affirmative. The question is therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 4. In view of the answers given above, the reference is disposed off with no orders as to costs. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:49:05 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →