Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/2145/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 2145 of 2009
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant(s)
Versus
JAY
CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT
for
Appellant
None for
Opponent
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI 4th April 2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Revenue
is in Appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 9th
January 2009, raising following questions for our consideration :-
“Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
order passed by CIT [A] in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3 lacs
made on account of payment made to Gujarat Dyestuff Manufacturers
Association disregarding the fact that the payment was not wholly and
exclusively incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee ?”
“Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
order passed by CIT [A] in directing not to exclude 90% of Excise
refund (Mfg.), Excise refund (Merchant), insurance claim from the
profit of the business for calculation of deduction u/s. 80HHC ?”
With
respect to Question No.1, we find that the Tribunal, relying on the
decision of Madras High Court, reported in 292 ITR 115, held that the
payment
made by the assessee to the Gujarat Dyestuff Manufacturers’
Association was wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of
business. This is also the view of the CIT [A].
We
find that the issue does not give rise to any substantial question of
law. It appears that the assessee had made payment of Rs. 3 lacs to
its Association. Such payment was categorized as the one which was
wholly and exclusively incurred for the business of the assessee.
Such question is, therefore, not referred.
With
respect to Question No.2, counsel for the Revenue submitted that
similar issue raised in Tax Appeal No. 516 of 2008 is admitted for
consideration.
In
the result, present Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of
Question No. 2 alone. To be heard with Tax Appeal No. 516 of 2008.
{Akil
Kureshi, J.}
{Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J.}
Prakash*
Top