9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.Naresh Kumar J U D G M E N T M.M.SUNDRESH, J. The assessee has come up on appeal, challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2009 passed in ITA No.1124/Mds/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07 by raising the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in disallowing the claim of expenditure on replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure,more so in the context of the latest full bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bjojraj Textiles Mills Ltd and also another Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Textiles which was rendered after the decision of Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e incurred by the assessee will have to be taken only as revenue expenditure and thereby allowed the appeal. As against the said order of the CIT (Appeals), the revenue preferred further appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has reversed the said decision of the CIT (Appeals) by relying upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills Pvt.Ltd.(315 ITR 114). Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee has come up before this court raising the substantial questions of law mentioned above. 3. Heard Mr.Sivaraman, the learned counsel for the assessee and Mr.J.Naresh Kumar, the learned Standing counsel for the revenue. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal particularly with reference to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs. M/s.Hindustan Textiles made in Civil Appeal No.7297 of 2009 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2037 of 2009) dated 3.11.2009 and decide the issue in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the assessee for producing additional material in respect of the machinery acquired during the relevant period. In view of the above, we are not answering the questions of law raised in these appeals. No costs." 5. Considering the judgment rendered by this court dated 22.06.2010, we are of the opinion that the questions of law raised in ground (c ) and (d ) do not require any consideration. However, the other questions of law raised in ground ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
