Gujarat High Court High Court

Commissioner vs Unknown on 12 October, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Commissioner vs Unknown on 12 October, 2011
Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

TAXAP/1788/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 1788 of 2010
 

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

 

COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

MILTON
LAMINATES LTD. - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
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
: 12/10/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

Tax
Appeal is directed against the decision of the Tribunal dated
17.11.2009 raising following questions for our consideration :

“(A) Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
order passed by CIT(A) in holding that the ground relating to the
Assessing Officer to take into account the DEPB income on actual sale
basis and not on accrual basis while holding that the assessee is not
entitled for deduction under section 80HHC on DEPB/DFRC entitlements
is infructuous?

(B) Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and of acts in confirming the
order passed by CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude
only the net amount of other export entitlements such as Sales Tax
and Excise Duty refund for computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the
I.T. Act?”

Insofar
as question(B) is concerned, we find from the record that
CIT(Appeals) had only restored the matter back to the Assessing
Officer making certain observations. Tribunal in turn confirmed such
order of the CIT(Appeals). No question of law therefore, arises.

With
respect to Question(A), counsel for the Revenue submitted that issue
is covered by decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT v.
Kalpataru Colours and Chemmicals,
(2010) 328 ITR 451 (Bom.) and our Court in judgement dated 10.8.2011
passed in Tax Appeal No.507/2010.

Under
the circumstances, issue notice of final disposal returnable on
16.11.2011, only with respect to question (A).

Direct
service s permitted.

(Akil
Kureshi,J.)

(Ms.

Sonia Gokani,J.)

(raghu)

   

Top