THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. ATUL LIMITED

TAXAP/1375/2018HC GujaratGJHC24053980201805 February 2019Author: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

Facts

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (appellant) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated January 12, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench ‘C’. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1996-97 and concerns three specific disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The amounts in dispute are Rs. 34,972/- under Rule 6D, Rs. 37,461/- under Section 80M, and Rs. 77,471/- under Section 80IA. The ITAT had deleted these disallowances. The appeal was presented to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.

Held

The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, observed that the total amount involved in the appeal was very small. Considering the smallness of the amount in dispute, the Court was not inclined to delve into the merits of the controversy. Therefore, the High Court decided to dispose of the appeal without adjudicating on the substantive issues raised. The appeal was left open for the appellant to raise the same in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on any of the issues, and no operative directions were issued regarding the disallowances themselves.

Key Issues

The High Court was asked to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 34,972/- made under Rule 6D of the Rules? 2. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 37,461/- made under Section 80M of the Act in respect of corporate dividends? 3. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 77,471/- made under Section 80IA of the Act, by ignoring that sale proceeds of empty containers cannot be stated to be derived from any manufacturing activity? The appellant (Revenue) contended that the ITAT had erred in law and on facts in deleting the aforementioned disallowances. The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the respondent (assessee).

Sections Cited

Section 260A, Rule 6D, Section 80M, Section 80IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/1375/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1375 of 2018 ================================================================ THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Versus ATUL LIMITED ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER Date : 05/02/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

1.

By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant has called in question the order dated 12.1.2018 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘C’, in ITA No. 2780/Ahd/2002 for the assessment year 1996-97 by proposing the following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law. “[A] Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.34,972/- made under Rule 6D of the Rules? [B] W

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →