{"id":3989,"date":"2011-11-30T10:11:52","date_gmt":"2011-11-30T10:11:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=3989"},"modified":"2011-11-30T10:11:52","modified_gmt":"2011-11-30T10:11:52","slug":"c-c-construction-pvt-ltd-vs-cit-delhi-high-court-s-260a-high-court-has-no-power-to-consider-issue-not-raised-before-tribunal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/c-c-construction-pvt-ltd-vs-cit-delhi-high-court-s-260a-high-court-has-no-power-to-consider-issue-not-raised-before-tribunal\/","title":{"rendered":"C&#038; C Construction Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=562\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=562&varname2=c_n_c_construction_additional_ground_260A.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (c_n_c_construction_additional_ground_260A.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nS. 260A: High Court has no power to consider issue not raised before Tribunal<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal in which it argued that it had constructed a \u201ctemporary construction\u201d which was eligible for <em>100% depreciation<\/em>. This was rejected by the Tribunal on the basis that the construction was permanent. Before the High Court, <em>the assessee argued for the first time that the expenditure was \u201crevenue\u201d in nature<\/em> and admissible as business expenditure. HELD not permitting the assessee to raise the plea:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>A contention\/ issue, which is not raised, dealt with or answered by the Tribunal, cannot be raised before the High Court for the first time in an appeal u\/s 260A<\/strong>. Though s. 260A(6) empowers the High Court to \u201c<em>determine any issue which has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal<\/em>\u201d, the word \u201c<em>determined<\/em>\u201d means that the issue is not dealt with, though it was raised before the Tribunal. The word \u201c<em>determined<\/em>\u201d presupposes an issue was raised or argued but there is failure of the Tribunal to decide or adjudicated the same. However, <strong>as the issue whether the expenditure is capital or revenue was not raised before the Tribunal, it does not arise from the order of the Tribunal and cannot be entertained<\/strong> (<strong>Mahalakshmi Textile Mills<\/strong> 66 ITR 710 (SC) distinguished)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong>A contention\/ issue, which is not raised, dealt with or answered by the Tribunal, cannot be raised before the High Court for the first time in an appeal u\/s 260A<\/strong>. Though s. 260A(6) empowers the High Court to \u201c<em>determine any issue which has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal<\/em>\u201d, the word \u201c<em>determined<\/em>\u201d means that the issue is not dealt with, though it was raised before the Tribunal. The word \u201c<em>determined<\/em>\u201d presupposes an issue was raised or argued but there is failure of the Tribunal to decide or adjudicated the same. However, <strong>as the issue whether the expenditure is capital or revenue was not raised before the Tribunal, it does not arise from the order of the Tribunal and cannot be entertained<\/strong> (<strong>Mahalakshmi Textile Mills<\/strong> 66 ITR 710 (SC) distinguished)<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/c-c-construction-pvt-ltd-vs-cit-delhi-high-court-s-260a-high-court-has-no-power-to-consider-issue-not-raised-before-tribunal\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3989","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3989","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3989"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3989\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3989"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3989"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3989"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}