PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 vs. SATYAM CORPORATION

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/779/2018HC GujaratGJHC24035873201816 July 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the ITAT, in its impugned order, had relied on its own previous decision in the case of M/s. Shree Hari Developers. It was not disputed that this decision of the ITAT in M/s. Shree Hari Developers was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court itself on 27.02.2018 in Tax Appeal No.124/2018 and other allied appeals. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the issue involved in the present appeal was squarely covered against the Revenue by the Division Bench's earlier order. The Court found that the Division Bench had answered a similar question against the Revenue in the cited case. Consequently, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal and dismissed it.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 7, has appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'D', for Assessment Year 2009-2010. The ITAT had deleted additions of Rs. 83,65,570/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court challenges the ITAT's deletion of these additions, which were made under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. The High Court heard the learned advocate for the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the additions made under Section 80IB(10) of Rs. 83,65,570/- by the Assessing Officer? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the Appellate Tribunal erred in law by deleting the additions made under Section 80IB(10). The Revenue's appeal is based on the proposed substantial question of law as stated above.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/779/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 779 of 2018 ================================================================ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 Versus SATYAM CORPORATION ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 16/07/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)

1.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'D' in ITA No.1178/Ahd/2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-2010, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeal with the following proposed substantial question of law :- “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the additions

made

u/s.

80IB(10)

of Rs.83,65,570/- by the Assessing Officer?” C/TAXAP/779/2018 ORDER

2.

We have heard learned Advocate Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt appearing for the appellant – Revenue.

3.

From the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears and it is not in dispute that while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has relied upon its decision in the case of M/s. Shree Hari Developers. It is not in dispute that so far as the decision in the case of M/s. Shree Hari Developers, relied upon by the learned Tribunal has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.02.2018 in Tax Appeal

4.

Under the circumstances, on dismissal of the Appeal by the Revenue, in the case of M/s. Shree Hari Developers, the issue involved in the present Appeal will be squarely covered against the Revenue. The Division Bench of this Court, in the aforesaid case, has answered the similar question / case against the Revenue.

5.

Under the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal, for the reasons stated in C/TAXAP/779/2018 ORDER the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 v. Shree Hari Developers in Tax Appeal

6.

Under the circumstances, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J) (A.Y. KOGJE, J) Caroline

More judgments on Section 80IB(10)

All 838 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB(10) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →