2008-VIL-57-SC-DT

Equivalent Citation: [2009] 313 ITR 24 (SC)

Supreme Court of India

909 of 2008 with 3170 of 2006

Date: 01.02.2008

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Vs

OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD.

K.K. Senthilvelan, Navin Prakash, and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates, for the appellant.
Sidharth Chaudhary, Rahul Gupta, Bhargava V. Desai, and Ms. Reema Sharma, Advocates, for the respondent.

BENCH

S.H. KAPADIA and B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.

JUDGMENT

In S.L.P.(C) No.11507/2005:

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. In this case, substantial question of law arose before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. The said question was as follows:

"Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs.1,16,89,327/- incurred as 'Issue Management Expenses'?"

4. Reading the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court, we find that the assessee has succeeded only on the basis of 'Rule of Consistency'. In our view, the High Court should have examined the nature of the said expenses, namely, 'Issue Management Expense'. In our view, substantial question of law did arise for determination.

5. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

6. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

7. No order as to costs.

In C.A.No.3170/2006:

8. Following our above order in the appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.11507/2007, while setting aside the impugned judgment, we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

9. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

10. No order as to costs.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.