CORE HEALTH CARE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/2035/2009HC GujaratGJHC24041079200914 September 2022Author: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the issue relating to the merits of the case had been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAXOP Investment Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC). Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the High Court directed the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to examine the claim in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The High Court disposed of the Tax Appeal accordingly, effectively upholding the ITAT's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration based on the Apex Court's ruling.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by Core Health Care Limited against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The order under challenge is an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in light of Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962, and a decision of the Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Daga Capital Investment Pvt. Ltd. The High Court of Gujarat admitted the appeal on 02.11.2009 to consider a substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sending back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and directing him to decide the issue in view of Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962, and the decision of the Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Daga Capital Investment Pvt. Ltd.? Assessee's contention: The assessee (Core Health Care Limited) is implicitly challenging the ITAT's decision to remand the matter, as indicated by the substantial question of law framed by the High Court. The assessee likely argued that the ITAT's direction to the Assessing Officer was incorrect or that the issue should have been decided on merits by the ITAT itself. Revenue's contention: The revenue (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) is not recorded as having made any specific arguments in the provided text. However, by implication, the revenue would support the ITAT's order remanding the matter for further adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

C/TAXAP/2035/2009 ORDER DATED: 14/09/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2035 of 2009 ========================================================== CORE HEALTH CARE LIMITED Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ========================================================== Appearance: MRS SWATI SOPARKAR(870) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI Date : 14/09/2022

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)

This appeal came to be admitted on 02.11.2009 to consider following substantial question of law : “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of relevant provision of Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sending back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer and direct him to decide this issue in view of the Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and the decision of Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Daga Capital Investment Pvt. Ltd.?”

The issue relating to merits of the case is said to have been laid to rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MAXOP Investment Ltd. versus Commissioner of C/TAXAP/2035/2009 ORDER DATED: 14/09/2022 Income Tax reported in (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC).

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits, we direct the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to examine the claim in light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Present Tax Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ) (ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) AMAR SINGH

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →