Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Kolkata v. M/s. Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue challenged the ITAT A Bench Kolkata order dated 3 August 2023 in 191/Kol/2021 for AY 2007–08. The proposed questions challenged reliance on other years, including the treatment of prior-period expenses.

Source: PDF p. 1

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court recorded that the Tribunal had addressed seven issues, that those issues had been decided in the assessee’s favour for subsequent years, and that those other-year orders had attained finality. Revenue established no distinguishing feature warranting a different result.

Source: PDF p. 2

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

Revenue’s appeal was dismissed and the substantial questions of law answered against Revenue.

Source: PDF p. 2

4. OUTCOME

Assessee retained the Tribunal’s relief for AY 2007–08 on the recurring issues considered.

Source: PDF p. 2

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Consistency depends on the factual comparison

The decisive finding is Revenue’s failure to show a distinguishing feature, alongside final other-year orders. This is not an unconditional rule that an item described by the same accounting label must always receive identical tax treatment.

Source: PDF p. 2

Distinguish questions from findings

The proposed questions refer to AYs 1990–91 and 2009–10, while the Court’s reasoning describes favourable subsequent-year decisions. That source structure should be preserved rather than rewritten into a single invented year-by-year chronology.

Source: PDF p. 1

Do not reconstruct seven unlisted issues

The order says the Tribunal considered seven issues but does not detail all of them or provide amounts. The note should not manufacture a seven-item deduction list from the limited questions reproduced.

Source: PDF p. 2