2019 (2) TMI 2130 - HC - Income Tax

Corporate Tax Challenge Fails as High Court Rejects Appeal, Upholds Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's Original Order Under Section 260A

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13 Versus Tops Group Electronics Systems Ltd

The BOM HC dismissed an IT appeal under Section 260A, finding no substantial legal questions in challenges to ITAT's order. The court referenced prior ... Transaction bearing on computation of income - HELD THAT:- It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stands concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. PMP Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (2) TMI 1516 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] This by following the decision of this Court in the case of Vodafone Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2014 (10) TMI 278 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Thus, this question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law, hence, not entertained. Addition on account of notional interest - opportunity cost of the excess money invested - whether it is the amount that would have been recovered in an uncontrolled transaction - HELD THAT:- It is an agreed position between the parties that this issue has been concluded in favour of the respondent assessee and against the Revenue by this Court in M/s. Aegis Limited [2019 (4) TMI 858 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein this issue was dealt with question No. 1 thereto. Thus, this question also does not give rise to any substantial question of law, hence, not entertained. The Bombay High Court, in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerning Assessment Year 2009-10, examined two key questions raised by the Revenue challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 19.2.2016. (i) Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the ratio in Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd [368 ITR 001 (BOM)] to the present case affecting computation of income; and (ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in deleting an addition of Rs. 18,62,62,539/- as notional interest, representing opportunity cost on excess investment, which should have been considered as recoverable in an uncontrolled transaction.The Court held that both issues were previously settled by its own decisions: - Question (i) was conclusively addressed in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. PMP Auto Components Pvt Ltd (Income Tax Appeal No. 1685 of 2016, dated 20.2.2019), following Vodafone Services Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India (268 ITR 1), and thus did not raise any substantial question of law. - Question (ii) was similarly decided in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. Aegis Limited (Income Tax Appeal No. 1248 of 2016, dated 28.1.2019), also not raising any substantial question of law.Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.