COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. SUPERNOVA ENGINEERS LTD

O/TAXAP/1827/2009 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1827 of 2009

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

================================================================ 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV....Appellant(s) Versus SUPERNOVA ENGINEERS LTD....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR TEJ SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Page 1 of 3

O/TAXAP/1827/2009 JUDGMENT

Date : 18/12/2014

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,

Ahmedabad Bench

“A” in

ITA No.1233/Ahd/2006 for AY 2003-04. 2. While admitting this appeal on 15.6.2011, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) deleting the addition of rs. 20,78,548/- made on account of disallowing deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act on interest income ?” 3. The facts of the present case are that the return of income was filed by the assessee on 29.11.2003 showing income of Rs. 61,05,056/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 25,46,121/- u/s. 80IB. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) on 18.10.2004 which was duly served on the assessee on 20.10.2004. In response to notices issued under sec. 143(2) & 142(1) the assessee has Page 2 of 3

O/TAXAP/1827/2009 JUDGMENT furnished necessary details. After considering the same, the assessment order came to be passed. The assessee has challenged the same before the CIT(A) which was allowed. The Revenue has challenged the order of CIT(A) before the ITAT which came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order passed by ITAT, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal before this court. 4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that now the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2012] 343 ITR 89 (SC). In that view of the matter, the question is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and we hold that the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) deleting the addition of rs. 20,78,548/- made on account of disallowing deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act on interest income. The present Tax Appeal is dismissed. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) mandora Page 3 of 3