DY. CIT vs. HARI ORGOCHEM PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/246/2000HC GujaratGJHC24022766200021 August 2012Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the question of law involved in the present appeal was squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mandideep Eng. & Pkg. Ind. P. Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 1 (SC). The Court also observed that Tax Appeal No. 99 of 1999, which involved a similar question, had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on June 16, 2011. Consequently, following these precedents, the present appeal was also dismissed. The question of law was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the respondent assessee and against the Revenue. The operative direction was to dismiss the tax appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Dy. CIT, filed an appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated March 1, 2000. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The core of the dispute revolves around the ITAT's direction to allow separate relief under Section 80HHA and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act. The High Court admitted the appeal and framed a substantial question of law. This appeal was ordered to be heard alongside Tax Appeal No. 99 of 1999, which involved a similar issue. The opponent in this appeal is Hari Orgochem Pvt. Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing to allow separate relief under Section 80HHA and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act? The Revenue's contention, as indicated by their filing of the appeal, is that the Tribunal erred in allowing separate reliefs under Section 80HHA and Section 80I. The specific arguments of the Revenue are not detailed in the judgment, but their appeal implies disagreement with the Tribunal's decision. The Assessee (Hari Orgochem Pvt. Ltd.) would have argued in support of the Tribunal's order, contending that separate reliefs under these sections are permissible. The judgment notes that the Revenue's counsel candidly pointed out that the issue is covered by a Supreme Court decision. The Assessee's specific arguments or reliance on authorities are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHA,Section 80I

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TAXAP/246/2000 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No.246 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI ========================================================= 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? ========================================================= DY. CIT - Appellant(s) Versus HARI ORGOCHEM PVT. LTD. - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Date : 21/08/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

TAXAP/246/2000 2/2 JUDGMENT 1. Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 1st March 2000. At the time of admission of appeal, following substantial question of law was framed: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing to allow separate relief u/s 80HHA and 80I of the Act ?” This Tax Appeal was ordered to be heard with Tax Appeal No.99 of 1999 in which also similar question was involved. 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue candidly pointed out that the question involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mandideep Eng. & Pkg. Ind. P. Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 1 (SC). We also note that Tax Appeal No.99 of 1999 came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 16.6.2011. 3. Under the circumstances, this appeal is also dismissed. We answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the respondent assessee and against the revenue. Tax appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (Harsha Devani, J.) (vjn)

More judgments on Section 80I

All 104 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80I →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →