Gujarat High Court High Court

Asstt vs Unknown on 21 September, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Asstt vs Unknown on 21 September, 2010
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

TAXAP/237/2001	 1/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 237 of
2001 
 
=========================================================


 

ASSTT.
C.I.T. - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

I.P.C.L.
- Opponent(s)
 

========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
MANISH R BHATT for
Appellant 
MR JP SHAH for Opponent No : 1 
MR MANISH J SHAH for
Opponent No :
1 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/09/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)

The
appellant-Revenue in this Appeal under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 has proposed the following three questions stated to
be substantial questions of law for determination by this Court.

(1)

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law
and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.48,70,43,278/-,
being interest payable holding that the amount was revenue
expenditure allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act
disregarding the clear provisions of Section 43(1) Explanation 8 of
the Act?

(2)

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on
facts in not appreciating that the transaction between the assessee
and ICICI were sham transaction?

(3)

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on
facts in holding that the assessee being a hire purchaser was
entitled for lease rent amounting to Rs.19,60,46,324/-?

The
assessment year is 1996-97 and the relevant accounting period is the
year ended on 31st March, 1996. It is an accepted
position that the controversy involved in the present case stands
concluded vide order of even date made by this Court in assessee’s
own case in Tax Appeal
No.236/2001.

For
the reasons stated in the order of even date made in Tax
Appeal No.236/2001, it is not possible to state that the
impugned order of the Tribunal gives rise to any question of law so
as to warrant interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(K.A.

PUJ, J.)

(HARSHA
DEVANI, J.)

Pankaj

   

Top