GALA PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,THANE vs. ACIT RANGE - 6(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to share issue expenses as it was covered by a previous order in the assessee's own case. However, the issue concerning MODVAT credit was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee contested additions made by the Assessing Officer, specifically regarding share issue expenses and MODVAT credit. The Assessing Officer had made additions under sections 35D and 145A of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether share issue expenses are allowable under Section 35D and how MODVAT credit should be treated under Section 145A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT228 citing225 ITR 798 · 1997 · SC · Read judgment
- Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT158 citing225 ITR 792 · 1997 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2007-08 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13 [CIT(A)], Mumbai Appeal No.CIT(A)-13/ACIT- Gala Precision Technology Private Limited Assessment Year 2007-08 7(1)(1)/25/2015-16 dated 18/07/2016. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3) on 04/12/2009 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of certain additions u/s 35D and addition of MODVAT credit u/s 145A.
Facts leading to the same are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in manufacturing & marketing of engineering products has been assessed for impugned AY at Rs.79.69 Lacs after certain additions / disallowances under normal provisions as against returned income of Rs.76.09 Lacs filed by the assessee on 31/10/2007. 3. The first issue is related with addition u/s 35D on account of Share issue expenses for Rs.1,19,315/- which has been disallowed, inter-alia, by following rulings of Apex Court rendered in M/s Broke Bond (I) Ltd. [225 ITR 798] & PSIDC [225 ITR 792]. The Ld. Authorised Representative for assessee [AR] fairly conceded that issue stood covered against the assessee by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 vide dated 25/07/2014, a copy of which has been placed on record. In view of admitted position, this ground of appeal
stands dismissed.
4. The second issue pertains to addition of CENVAT credit for Rs.10,80,330/- u/s 145A. The Ld. AR drew attention to the fact that this issue is also recurring in nature and already delved upon by the Tribunal in AYs 2005-06 & 2006-07 where the matter has been remitted back with certain directions. Upon perusal of the cited order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07, we concur with the stand of Ld.
Gala Precision Technology Private Limited Assessment Year 2007-08 AR and find that the matter has been remitted back by the Tribunal in earlier years with following directions:- 5.4 The contention of the assessee was that it was following consistently exclusive method of MODVAT account and it has added unutilized MODVAT credit to the closing stock. However, the AO has added unutilized MODVAT credit to closing stock of raw material. By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing that mandatory provision of Section 145A is applicable. We found that exactly similar issue has been considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the immediately preceding year 2005-06, where matter has been restored to the file of the AO with the following observations :- “9. The next grievance of the assessee relates to addition of MODVAT of Rs.32,43,539/- under Section 145A. We found that exactly similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in aforementioned order dated 30-7-2010, wherein the matter was restored to the file of AO with the following observations :- “7. The next ground was with respect to addition of closing balance of MODVAT credit of Rs. 4,78,362/- as a part of the closing stock The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the contention of the AO by adding closing balance of Modvat credit of Rs. 4,78,362/- to the closing stock. We find that the issue is covered in assessee's own case in ITA No·5760/M/2005 for the A.Y. 2003-04 wherein it has been held as follows :- "since the issue under consideration is identical to that of Hawkins Cookers Ltd. in vide order dtd.11.8.2008, we remit the matter back to the file of the AD with a direction to decide the issue by following the guidelines given in Hawkins Cookers' Ltd. Thus this ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes" Respectfully following the earlier year order we remit back the issue to the file of the AD and redo the working in the light of the decision of Hawkins Cookers Ltd.(supra).” We have considered rival contentions. As facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are the same as discussed by the Tribunal in its order dated 30-7-2010, therefore, we restore this ground with regard to addition on account of MODVAT to the file of the AO for deciding afresh in terms of direction given by the Tribunal as quoted above.” 5.5 As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case, the issue is restored back to the file of the AO for deciding afresh as per the direction given by the Tribunal in its order dated 30-7-2010. We direct accordingly.
Since a view has already been taken, respectfully following the same, the matter stands remitted back to the file of Ld. AO on similar lines for re-adjudication. This ground stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Gala Precision Technology Private Limited Assessment Year 2007-08 5. In nutshell, the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th March, 2018.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs DCIT RG. - 3(1), MumbaiMumbai23 Feb 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal decided that expenses incurred in connection with the buy-back of shares are allowable as revenue expenditure, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. The Tribunal also...
- ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, MumbaiMumbai13 Apr 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal decided that the issues raised in the appeal and cross-objection were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-o...
- DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs Mercury Projects Private Limited, HyderabadHyderabad18 Jul 2018Partly Allowed
Also relies on Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, following the High Court ruling that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income is earned. The appeal regarding preliminary exp...
- M/S. Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi vs DCIT, New DelhiDelhi20 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that IPO expenses for an aborted IPO are revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1). It also held that gains from foreign exchange and excess provisions are derived from the EOU unit and eligible...
- Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., Chennai vs ACIT, ChennaiChennai18 Dec 2015Partly Allowed
Also relies on Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that share issue expenses incurred for expansion of business operations qualify for amortization under Section 35D of the Act. The CIT(A) had overlooked earlier orders and relied solely on precedent wit...
More judgments on Section 35D
- Yashpal Singh Yadav, Noida vs ACIT Circle-2(3)91), JhansiITA 443/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- DCIT-4(1), Indore vs Texmo Pipes and Products Limited, BurhanpurITA 423/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Income Tax Officer Ward 7 1, Pune vs Sarsan Developers, PuneITA 460/PUN/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Road Infrastructure Development Company of… vs ACIT, Circle 6, Jaipur, Central Revenue…ITA 1425/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
- Sanraj Hospitality Private Ltd, Delhi vs ITO Ward 22(3), DelhiITA 7410/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2017-18
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026