IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 ITA.No. 521 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.247/2001 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REP. BY S.SANKARA RAMAN DIRECTOR OF THE BANK, FEDERAL TOWERS ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF(ASSESSMENT) SPL. RANGE ERNAKULAM 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH ITA NOS.522&525 OF 2009 ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal Nos.521,522 & 525 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The issue raised i.e. assessee's claim for deduction of expenditure incurred for raising additional capital through issue of shares as revenue expenditure, is covered against the assessee by judgment in assessee's own case i.e I.T.A. No.186/2001 dated 30.1.2008. In fact, this court decided the issue against the assessee following the decision of the Supreme Court in PUNJAB STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V. C.I.T. (1997) 225 ITR 792. Following the earlier judgment, Supreme Court confirmed the position in BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD. V. C.I.T. (1997) 225 ITR 798. Even though Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the capital raised in BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD.'s case would go into acquisition of plant, machinery etc., which are capital assets, whereas in the case of the assessee the additional capital raised is used for working capital, we do not think the position makes 2 any difference. In any case the PUNJAB STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION's case is similar to that of appellant's case because they are also not engaged in purchase of any plant and machinery using the additional capital raised. Therefore, following this judgment of the Supreme Court and our first judgment, we dismiss all these appeals filed by the assessee. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms