M/S. RICHARDSON HINDUSTANLTD. vs. THE C.I.T.B.C-V.

ITR/701/1998HC 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 question no. 1(a) in the affirmative and against the assessee. This decision was based on the Court's judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 in Income Tax Reference No. 315 of 1988, which concerned the same assessee and similar facts. For the same reasons provided in that prior judgment, the claim for weighted deduction on distillation services was rejected. Similarly, questions nos. 1(b) and 1(c) were also answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. These answers were based on the Court's judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 in Income Tax Reference No. 3 of 1998, which also involved the same assessee and similar factual backgrounds. Therefore, the claims for weighted deduction on transportation services and depreciation on distillation assets were also rejected. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no orders as to costs.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns Income Tax Reference No. 701 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court. The applicant is M/s. Richardson Hindustan Ltd. (the assessee), and the respondent is The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-V. The reference arises from an order of the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee sought weighted deduction under Section 35C of the Income-tax Act for expenses incurred on distillation services provided to farmers (Rs. 7,59,784/-), transportation services provided to farmers (Rs. 3,27,628/-), and depreciation on distillation assets (Rs. 1,47,676/-). The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues for the same assessee in related references.

What were the issues?

The primary question of law before the High Court was: 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. 7,59,784/- incurred under the head Distillation services provided to farmers; (b) Expenses of Rs. 3,27,628/- incurred under the head Transportation services provided to farmers; (c) Depreciation of Rs. 1,47,676/- on Distillation Assets? The judgment does not explicitly record the arguments made by the assessee or the revenue before the High Court. However, it refers to previous judgments of the same court concerning the same assessee and similar facts, indicating that the core of the dispute revolved around the eligibility of these expenses and depreciation for weighted deduction under Section 35C.

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.701 OF 1998 M/s.Richardson Hindustan Ltd., ) Tiecion House, 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) Expenses of Rs.7,59,784/- incurred under the head Distilletion services provided to farmers ; (b) Expenses of Rs.3,27,628/- incurred under the head Transportation services provided to farmers ; (c) Depreciation of Rs.1,47,676 on Distillation Assets ? 2. As regards question no.1(a), the same has been answered in the affirmative and against the assessee CNR No : HCBM020211901996 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:49:08

: 2 : by our judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.315 of 1988. The said reference concerns the same assessee and arose out of the similar background of facts. For the same reasons as given by us in the aforesaid judgment, question no.1(a) is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 3. Question nos.1(b) & 1(c) have also been answered by us in the affirmative and against the assessee by our judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998. The said reference also concerns the same assessee and arose out of similar background of facts. In the circumstances, question nos.1(b) & 1(c) are answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 4. In view of the answers given above, 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 05:49:08 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →