COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S. AVNI PETROCHEM LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of the smallness of the amount involved. It noted that the revenue effect was less than Rs. 1 lakh. Citing CBDT Instruction No. 1979 dated 27th March, 2000 and 02 of 2005, the Court held that the revenue ought not to have filed an appeal where the total revenue effect was less than Rs. 1 lakh. Consequently, the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal was not entertained and was dismissed on this preliminary ground. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal in case of difficulty. No decision was made on the merits of the disallowance.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I (appellant-revenue) against the order dated 22.06.2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, in ITA No. 680/Ahd/2001. The assessment year in question was 1996-97. The dispute concerned the deletion of a disallowance of foreign travel expenses amounting to Rs. 3,21,650/- by the CIT(A). The revenue contended that these expenses were incurred for setting up a new line of business in diamonds, which had not yet commenced. The High Court admitted the appeal on 18.09.2007, framing a substantial question of law.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the deletion of disallowance of foreign travel expenses of Rs. 3,21,650/- by the CIT(A), which, as per the revenue, was incurred for setting up a new line of business in diamond which had not yet commenced? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the foreign travel expenses of Rs. 3,21,650/- were incurred for setting up a new line of business in diamonds, which had not yet commenced, and therefore, the disallowance should have been upheld.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
O/TAXAP/297/2007 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 297 of 2007
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-I....Appellant(s) Versus M/S. AVNI PETROCHEM LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 22/12/2014
Page 1 of 3
O/TAXAP/297/2007 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 22.06.2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA No. 680/Ahd/2001 for the assessment year 1996-97. 2. While admitting this appeal on 18.09.2007, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the deletion of disallowance of foreign travel expenses of Rs. 3,21,650/- by the CIT(A), which as per the revenue the expenditure was incurred for setting up a new line of business in diamond which had not yet commenced? 3. In our view, the amount involved in the present case is a small one and the revenue effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh, and therefore, as per CDBT Instruction No. 1979 dated 27th March, 2000 and 02 of 2005, the revenue ought not to have come in appeal where the total revenue effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh, and therefore, this appeal is not entertained. The questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This appeal is dismissed on the ground of smallness of amount. Liberty to revive in case of difficulty. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Page 2 of 3
O/TAXAP/297/2007 JUDGMENT (K.J.THAKER, J) divya Page 3 of 3
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
