ITO, Bangalore V. M/s Chamundi Winery and Distillery, Bangalore

ITA 908/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 90821114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S VENKATESAN
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

ITA.908/BANG/2014 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.908/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 (3), BANGALORE ..APPELLANT V. M/S. CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY, 1313, 9 TH CROSS, 27 TH MAIN, 1 ST PHASE, J. P. NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 078 ..RESPONDENT PAN : AAEFC5505C ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. S. VENKATESAN, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI.ANURAG SAHAY, CIT-III HEARD ON : 17.08.2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 26 .08.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE, DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) II, BENGALUR U, DT.20.03.2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, IT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : ITA.908/BANG/2014 PAGE - 2 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS THAT REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED ON THE CIT (A) PLACING RELIANCE ON TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR A. Y. 2009-10. 02. ISSUE INVOLVED IS A CLAIM OF RS.31,75,95,820/- BY THE ASSESSEE AS PAYMENT TO M/S. DIAGEO INDIA PVT. LTD. PAYMENT WAS EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE PURSUANCE TO AN AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH ASSE SSEE WAS MANUFACTURING AND BOTTLING LIQUOR UNDER THE BRAND N AMES OF THE SAID COMPANY. AS PER THE AO, IT WAS ONLY UTILISATION OF SURPLUS OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE ASSESSEE WAS BILLING FOR THE SALES IN ITS BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND THE TURNOVER WAS ACCOUNTED FOR BY IT IN FULL. SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS THERE ITA.908/BANG/2014 FOR A. Y. 2009- 10 ALSO. IN THE SAID YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD MOVED IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AGAINST SUCH DISALLOWANCE WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY CIT (A). 03. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT (A)S DECISION, REVENUE HAD MO VED IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND DT.05.04.2013, FOR A. Y. 2009 10 ALSO. IN THE SAID YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD MOVED IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AGAINST SUCH DISALLOWANCE WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY CIT AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT (A)S DECISION, REVENUE HAD MO VED IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA.1260/BANG/2012, FOR A. Y. 2009 -10 HAD HELD AS UNDER : PAGE - 3 10 ALSO. IN THE SAID YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD MOVED IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AGAINST SUCH DISALLOWANCE WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY CIT AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT (A)S DECISION, REVENUE HAD MO VED IN THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA.1260/BANG/2012, ITA.908/BANG/2014 PAGE - 4 THUS WHAT WE FIND IS THAT CIT (A) HAD FOLLOWED ONLY THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A. Y. 2009-10. FACT-SITUATION WAS THE VERY SAME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND A NY MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 04. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26TH DAY OF A UGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (ABRAHAM P GEO RGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER MCN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR, 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR