DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTERNATIONAL SEAPORTS (HALDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed
ITA 997/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 997/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income International Seaports (Haldia) Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Vs Pvt. Ltd. 41, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road Kanak Building 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aaaci9468D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudipto Ghosh, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Kolkata- 4/10691/2015-16, Vide Order Dt. 14/02/2018, Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13, Dated 27/03/2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Company Stating That The Expenditure Of Rs.5,21,03,578/- Made On Account Of Repairing Work Made By The Concern M/S. Portek Systems & Equipments Pte. Ltd., Singapore Was Revenue Expenditure. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Not Appreciating The Facts That The Aforesaid Repairing Work Was Not Routine Repairing Works Of The Assessee Company & It Required Technical Assistance To Bring The Ship Unloaders In A Good Condition For Future Works. Ay: 2012-13 International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd. 2
For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudipto Ghosh, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 40
…irs and the amount spent AY: 2012-13 International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd. 19 depends upon various factors. This issue has been succinctly dealt by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chowgule & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 523 (Bom), wherein it has listed the propositions that emerged while dealing with the similar issue on the claim of repair expenses u/s 31 of the Act, which are reproduced as under:- “10. The propositions that emerge from the above discussion may be summed up thus: (i) The amount should be paid on account of current repairs. (ii) 'Current repairs' m…
