Bombay High Court
TXA/32/2003 of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI-GOA. Vs M/S DEMPO MINING CORPORATION PVT.LTD.,PANAJI-GOA. on 8 December 2003
COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2003 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ....Appellants PANAJI-GOA. Versus M/S DEMPO MINING CORPORATION ....Respondents PVT.LTD.,PANAJI-GOA. SHRI S.R. RIVANKAR WITH,SHRI SUDIN USGAONKAR Coram:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & P. V. HARDAS, JJ. Date:- 15th December,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
TAX APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2003
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI-GOA.
VersusM/S DEMPO MINING CORPORATION PVT.LTD.,PANAJI-GOA.
....Appellants
....Respondents
SHRI S.R. RIVANKAR WITH,SHRI SUDIN USGAONKAR
-Coram:A.M.KHANWILKAR &P. V. HARDAS, JJ.-Date:15th December, 2003
P.C.:
Only one question is raised in theseAppeals, being substantial question oflaw arising out of the impugned Order,to be examined by this Court in theseAppeals under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. The same readsthus:-
A) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT wasjustified in holding that the assesseeis entitled for deduction on investmentallowance u/s 32 A of the IT Act, inrespect of Machinery used in Miningactivity ignoring the fact that theassessee is engaged in extraction andprocessing of Iron Ore not amounting tomanufacturing or production of anyarticle or thing?"
2. Having considered the rivalsubmissions, it is seen that insofar asthe question regarding allowability ofinvestment allowance on machinery isconcerned, that issue stands answered bythe unreported decision of our HighCourt in Tax Appeal Nos. 66/2002, 5/2003and 6/2002, decided on 16th July, 2003.In the circumstances, we find no reasonto examine that question afresh inthese appeals. On the other hand, we arebound by the earlier decision of ourHigh Court referred to above in theleading case of Commissioner of IncomeTax vs. M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd..3. In the circumstances these Appealsfail and the same are dismissed.
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
P. V. HARDAS, J.