PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LTD.(ROMARLY RELIANCE FRESH LTD)

ITXA no. 2427 of 2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. Reliance Retail Ltd. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2427 OF 2018

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 … Appellant V/s. Reliance Retail Ltd.

… Respondent _______________________________________ Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant Mr. Madhur Agrawal a/w Mr. P.C. Tripathi, Mr. Ketan Dave and Mr. Pratik Shah i/b A.S. Dayal & Associates for Respondent _______________________________________ CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ. RESERVED ON : 11TH DECEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 19TH DECEMBER 2025 ORDER (Per Farhan P. Dubash, J.) : 1. This is an Income Tax Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Appellant – Revenue impugning the order dated 14th July 2017 (impugned order) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The impugned order dated 14th July 2017 is in respect of A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Appellant – Revenue has referred to the Questions of Law in paragraph 4 of the present Income Tax Appeal and for the sake of convenience and ready reference, the same are produced hereunder :- Page 1 of 3 ------------------------------------- Order dated 19TH December 2025

ITXA no. 2427 of 2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. Reliance Retail Ltd. “i. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in deleting disallowance in respect to expenses incurred in the towards the "direct project development expenditure of Rs.3811.28/-lakh" when the claim of the assessee is of dual nature that is in the books of accounts claiming it as capital expenditure and for the taxation as revenue expenditure? ii. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in allowing the expenses incurred u/s. 37(1) of the Act without appreciating that admittedly and also as accounted by assessee in its books of account, the expenses were preoperative in nature and hence not admissible as expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act thereby allowing the assessee undue benefit and inadmissible benefit u/s. 37(1) of the Act, giving rise to a substantial question of law as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT in 330 ITR (1) (SC)" 3. In respect of the same Respondent for the A.Y. 2008–09, the same questions of law were considered by a Division Bench of our Court in an order dated 17th September 2019 passed in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – 8 v. Reliance Fresh Ltd.1 Upon a detailed analysis of the questions of law and considering past judicial pronouncements, this Court held that the questions of law do not give rise to any substantial question of law, and 1 ITXA No. 985 of 2017 Page 2 of 3 ------------------------------------- Order dated 19TH December 2025

ITXA no. 2427 of 2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. Reliance Retail Ltd. accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant - Revenue for A.Y. 2008–09 was dismissed. 4. We have gone through the said order passed by this Court and also the judgments that are relied upon therein that have been tendered by the Respondent. 5. We have also heard both the parties. The said order dated 17th September 2019 squarely applies to the present Income Tax Appeal and we are inclined to follow the same. We are not persuaded to hold otherwise by the Appellant – Revenue. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the present Appeal also does not raise any substantial questions of law. 6. The present Income Tax Appeal is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R.I. CHAGLA J. ) Mandar M. ITXA No. 2427 of 2018 Page 3 of 3 ------------------------------------- Order dated 19TH December 2025 JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Digitally signed by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2025.12.19 12:32:16 +0530