Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/96920/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 969 of 2008
=========================================================
VINAYKANT
CHIMANLAL SHAH - Appellant(s)
Versus
DY.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSTT.) - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
SWATI SOPARKAR for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 25/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
Since the issue raised in
this Appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the
case of M/s. Sercon Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Income-tax and other cognate matters (Tax Appeal Nos.288, 356, 357
and 358 of 2002) decided on 21.7.2008, the Court has issued notice
on 7.8.2008. Notice was duly served on the respondent revenue.
Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appears for the revenue.
This appeal is,
therefore, admitted in terms of the following substantial questions
of law.
(i)
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, for computing
income chargeable under the head Capital Gains, the amount of
deduction to be made under Section 48(1)(b) read with Section 48(2)
was required to be computed before giving effect to the provisions of
Section 54E or, as was upheld by the Tribunal, it was required to be
computed after giving effect to the provisions of Section 54E of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
(ii) Whether, in the facts
and under the circumstances of the case, the deduction under Section
48(1)(b) read with Section 48(2) of the Act be computed before or
after giving effect to the provisions of Section 54E of the Act ?
Since the issue raised in
this Tax Appeal is squarely covered by the above referred decision
of this Court, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. The notice
of admission of Tax Appeal is waived by Mrs.Bhatt.
After
having heard Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the assessee and Mrs.Mauna Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the revenue, we are of the view that the issue is squarely
covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court and hence questions
proposed by the assessee are required to be answered in favour of
the assessee and against the revenue.
This Tax Appeal is
accordingly allowed.
(K. A. PUJ, J.) (B. N. MEHTA, J.)
kks
Top