COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 vs. P G FOILS LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal for AY 2008-2009. The Court reasoned that the ITAT's decision for the current AY was based on its own previous orders for AY 2006-2007 and AY 2007-2008, which had already been set aside by the High Court and remanded to the ITAT. To avoid conflicting orders, the High Court remanded the appeal for AY 2008-2009 back to the ITAT for fresh consideration on merits. The Court further directed that if the appeals for AY 2006-2007 and AY 2007-2008 were still pending before the ITAT, the appeal for AY 2008-2009 should be heard along with them to ensure consistency. The operative direction was to remand the matter to the ITAT.
What were the facts?
The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against an order dated 5.9.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-2009 and challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 4,15,20,000/- made on account of disallowance of Keyman Insurance Premium. The ITAT had relied on its own previous decisions for AY 2006-2007 and AY 2007-2008 concerning the same assessee, P G Foils Ltd. However, these previous decisions of the ITAT had been set aside by the High Court itself in Tax Appeal No. 13 of 2012 and Tax Appeal No. 506 of 2014, and the matters were remanded to the ITAT for fresh consideration. The assessee did not appear before the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,15,20,000/- made on account of disallowance of Keyman Insurance Premium for AY 2008-2009? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded as nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the learned Tribunal was not justified in deleting the addition. The Revenue highlighted that the ITAT's decision for AY 2008-2009 was based on its own prior orders for AY 2006-2007 and AY 2007-2008. Crucially, these prior orders of the ITAT had been set aside by the High Court and remanded for fresh consideration. The Revenue sought to quash the impugned order of the ITAT for AY 2008-2009.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
O/TAXAP/147/2015 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 147 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3....Appellant(s) Versus P G FOILS LTD....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 31/03/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT Page 1 of 4
O/TAXAP/147/2015 JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad “A” Bench, Ahmedabad (for short
“learned
Tribunal”)dated
5.9.2014
ITA No.849/Ahd/2011 for AY 2008-2009, the revenue has preferred the present tax appeal requesting to consider the following substantial question of law. “[A] Whether Ld. Tribunal was justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,15,20,000/- made on account of disallowance of Keyman Insurance Premium?”
Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent – assessee. 3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the revenue relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench for AY 2006-2007 in the case of the very assessee, which was subsequently followed in the subsequent year for AY 2007-2008 also. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the learned Tribunal in the case of the very assessee for AY 2006-2007 and AY 2007-2008 were carried before this Court by the revenue being Tax Appeal No.13 of 2012 with Tax Appeal No.506 of 2014 and by judgment and order dated 5.8.2014, the Division Bench of this Court had set aside the orders passed by the Page 2 of 4
O/TAXAP/147/2015 JUDGMENT learned Tribunal in the case of the very assessee for AY 2006- 2007 and AY 2007-2008, upon which the reliance has been placed by the learned Tribunal while remanding the appeal preferred by the revenue and by passing the impugned judgment and order and the Division Bench of this Court has remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal to consider the matters/appeals afresh in accordance with law and on merits. 4. In view of above, when the main issue involved in the appeal for AY 2008-2009 is remanded to the learned Tribunal for the AY 2006-2007 and AY 2007-2008 and the decision of the learned Tribunal, upon which the reliance has been placed, has now been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court and the matters are remanded to the learned Tribunal, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal and remand the matter/appeal to the learned Tribunal to consider the issue involved afresh in accordance with law and on merits. It is observed and directed that if the appeals for AY 2006-2007 and AY 2007- 2008 are still pending before the learned Tribunal, (pursuant to the earlier order of remand passed by this Court in Tax Appeal No.13 of 2012 with Tax Appeal No.506 of 2014), to avoid any further conflicting orders and as the issue involved is the same, the appeal on remand with respect to AY 2008- 2009 be heard along with appeals for AY 2006-2007 and AY 2007-2008. 5. With this, present tax appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. (M.R.SHAH, J.) Page 3 of 4
O/TAXAP/147/2015 JUDGMENT (S.H.VORA, J.) shekhar Page 4 of 4
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
