Gujarat High Court High Court

Commissioner vs Unknown on 19 April, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Commissioner vs Unknown on 19 April, 2011
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;Ms Gokani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

TAXAP/2465/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 2465 of 2009
 

To


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 2468 of 2009
 

 
 
=========================================================


 

COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX GANDHINAGAR - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

JYOT
OVERSEAS PVT LTD - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR M.R.BHATT,
SR. ADVOCATE WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT
for Appellant(s) : 1, 
None for
Opponent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/04/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

All
these appeals arise out of common judgment of the Tribunal dated
15.5.2009. Question No.1 is common in all appeals and is as follows:

“Whether
the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of
deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the I.T. Act?”

This
also the sole question in Tax Appeal No.2465 and 2466 of 2009.

With
respect to above question, counsel for the revenue submitted that
the issue is covered in favour of revenue by virtue of the decision
of Apex Court in the case of Liberty India V/s. Commissioner of
Income Tax reported in (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC).

In
Tax Appeal Nos.2467 and 2468 of 2009, there is additional question
pertaining to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer questioning
genuineness of purchases of Rs.16,90,200/-.

With
respect to question No.2, we have perused the record with the
assistance of learned counsel for the revenue. We find that CIT (A)
as well as Tribunal both concurrently on facts found that purchases
are genuine, there was sufficient evidence to hold so in favour of
the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial
question of law arise with respect to such question.

In
view of the above discussion, issue Notice
for
final disposal only with respect to sole question that survives in
all Tax Appeals returnable on 10th
May, 2011.

(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)

(Ms.SONIA
GOKANI, J.)

(ashish)

   

Top