COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD
LAWS(RAJ)-2007-11-40
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on November 22,2007

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant
VERSUS
HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench dt. 6th Nov., 2001, the appeal was admitted vide order dt. 16th Sept., 2003 by framing following three substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,77,16,044 made under Section 40A(9) of the IT Act on account of payment made to various funds, contributions of clubs, grant to school and hospital etc.? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of interest amounting to Rs. 18,56,32,417 as revenue expenditure on funds borrowed specifically for the new plant known as Chandaria unit? (3) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding the expenditure of Rs. 1,58,77,000 incurred on technology alternation prior of new unit as revenue expenditure and even if it is held to be so the same was not allowable being it an abortive expenditure because of the fact that the amount was paid as a damage to the contractor as the technology was not found suitable and the contact stood cancelled before the production was established?
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties on all the three questions and have perused the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal. So far as the question No. 1 is concerned, the matter had earlier come before this Court in the case of present assessee, of course relating to different assessment years, and that matter was decided by this Court vide judgment dt. 14th Dec., 2004, reported in CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2005) 194 CTR (Raj) 121, and by that judgment, the orders of the Tribunal were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the claim afresh.
(3.) IN our view, in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the matter is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding this question No. 1 afresh on lines given in the aforesaid judgment dt. 14th Dec, 2004.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.