COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs OSWALAGRO MILLS LIMITED

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(SC) 165

(2010) 14 SCC 552
S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUOERSHAN REDDY, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus
OSWALAGRO MILLS LIMITED

Advocates Appeared:
K.K. Senthilvelan, Navin Prakash and B.v. Balaram Das, Advocates, for the Appellant;
Siddhartha Chowdhury, Rahul Gupta, Bhargava V. Desai and Ms Reema Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Headnote:Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court failing to decide the substantial question of law viz. nature of the "issue management expenses" – Appeal allowed, matter remitted back. (Para 2, 3, 5)
       Facts of the case:
       High Court allowed the petition only on the basis of "rule of consistency".
       Finding of the Court:
       The High Court should have examined the nature of the said expenses, namely, "issue management expenses".
       Result:
       Appeals allowed.

ORDER

SLP (C) No. 11507 of 2005

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. In this case, a substantial questior, of law arose before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said question was as follows:

"Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs 1,16,89,327 incurred as 'issue management expenses'?"

2. 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 expenses". In our view, a substantial question of law did arise for determination. 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.

3. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.

CA No. 3170 of 2006

4. Following our above order in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11507 of 2005, while setting aside the impugned judgment, we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

5. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 165

(2010) 14 SCC 552S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUOERSHAN REDDY, JJ.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus OSWALAGRO MILLS LIMITED

(2010) 14 SCC 552
S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUOERSHAN REDDY, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus
OSWALAGRO MILLS LIMITED