COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.11.2008 in ITA No.3668/Mum/2005 in relation to the assessment year 2003-2004.

(2.) THE appeal is admitted on the substantial questions of law as stated in paragraph 4 (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (k), (l) (only partly insofar as it relates to rent but not insofar as it relates to interest) (m), (n) and (o). However, question (n) is reframed as under:-

(3.) RE. : Question (h) The issue is covered by our order dated 7.8.2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.1846 of 2010 in respect of the same assessee / respondent. A similar question was sought to be raised in ground (g) regarding the expenditure towards the professional charges for Techno Economical Feasibility Study of Aluminium Dye Cast components paid to the agency. It was found that the issue did not raise a question of law. The Tribunal had found that there was a close nexus between the business carried on by the respondent and the feasibility study in respect of the professional charges which had been incurred. In the present case also, it was held that the payments had been made for financial advice and for due diligence services with regard to utilization of resources / raw material for the respondent's plant and therefore, had to be allowed as an allowable business expenditure. The decision was based on the facts of the case which do not give rise to a substantial question of law:-