THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VADODARA-1 vs. GUJARAR ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal. The Court noted that the question of law proposed by the revenue in the present appeal was identical to the question of law proposed in a previous Tax Appeal (No. 186 of 2020) filed by the same assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08. That previous appeal had been dismissed by the High Court vide an order dated September 11, 2020. Following the precedent set in the earlier case, the High Court held that the present appeal should also fail and accordingly dismissed it. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Vadodara-1, filed a Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated September 5, 2019, for Assessment Year 2009-10. The ITAT had upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) in deleting an addition made by the Assessing Officer. The addition pertained to capital grant, calculated at 15% of a total grant of Rs. 25,000 Lacs. The Revenue also filed a Civil Application seeking condonation of a 3-day delay in filing the Tax Appeal. The High Court condoned the delay for the purpose of the application.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of capital grant being @ 15% of total grant of Rs. 25,000 Lacs? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning the treatment of capital grant). Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, it notes that the ITAT had upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT erred in law and facts by upholding the deletion of the addition related to capital grant. The revenue proposed the aforementioned question of law for consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
C/CA/2489/2020 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2489 of 2020 In R/TAX APPEAL NO. 381 of 2020 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 381 of 2020 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VADODARA-1 Versus GUJARAR ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 UCHIT N SHETH(7336) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 08/12/2020
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION :- This is an application at the instance of the revenue seeking condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the Tax Appeal. According to Mr. Varun Patel, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue, there is no delay. We do not propose to go into this issue as otherwise also the Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed. We proceed on the footing that, there is a delay of 3 days and the same stands condoned for the sufficient cause assigned in the application. Civil The Application stands disposed of accordingly. ORDER IN TAX APPEAL 1. This tax appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, 1961 for short) is at the instance of the revenue and is Page 1 of 2
C/CA/2489/2020 ORDER directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 05.09.2019 in the ITA No.652/Ahd/2013 for the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The revenue has proposed the following question of law for the consideration of this Court : “(a) whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of capital grant being @ 15 % of total grant of Rs.25,000 Lacs? 3. We have heard Mr. Varun K. Patel, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue and Mr. Uchit Sheth, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee on caveat. 4. The question of law as proposed by the revenue in the present appeal is the very same question of law as was proposed in the case of the very same assessee in the Tax Appeal No.186 of 2020. The Tax Appeal No.186 of 2020 for the assessment year 2007-08 came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2020. 5. In view of the above, this appeal should also fail and hereby fails. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (ILESH J. VORA,J) A. B. VAGHELA/SUCHIT Page 2 of 2
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
