Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/2210/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 2210 of 2009
=================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)
Versus
ADITI
EXPORTS PVT LTD - Opponent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR MR
BHATT,SR.ADV. 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
: 27/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue
has raised following three questions in the present appeal:-
“[A] Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the
order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the disallowance of
Rs.2,09,75,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of
the I.T. Act?
[B] Whether the
Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the
order passed by the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the disallowance of
depreciation of Rs.61,27,192/- made on account of plant and
machinery?”
[C] Whether the
Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the
order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of
Rs.1,23,97,183/- made on account of excess cost of purchase of
raw-material?”
2. At
the outset, counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the question [C]
does not arise in this Tax Appeal. The same is, therefore, not
required to be considered.
3. With
respect to question [B], it appears that the Tribunal found that
there was sufficient evidence to permit depreciation as claimed by
the assessee company. It appears that necessary bills were produced
and that there were other evidence to show that the machinery, in
fact, was installed. These being the facts, question [B] does not
arise in this appeal.
4. Tax
Appeal is admitted for consideration of question [A] only.
(Akil
Kureshi, J. )
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J. )
sudhir
Top