PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. TRIO ELEVATORS COMPANY(INDIA) LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/348/2018HC GujaratGJHC24017055201816 April 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal without recording separate reasons. For the first issue concerning the disallowance of provisions for doubtful debts and advances, the Court noted that in a similar appeal for an earlier assessment year, it had relied on the Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. ([2017] 397 ITR 55 (Guj) [FB]). For the second issue regarding depreciation on goodwill, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302 (SC)). Based on these precedents applied to the earlier assessment year, the present appeal was also dismissed. The specific reasoning for the ITAT's order on the merits of the disallowance or depreciation claim is not detailed, as the High Court's decision hinges on the application of prior judgments.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated October 12, 2017. The appeal concerned the assessee, Trio Elevators Company (India) Ltd. The ITAT had set aside the matter for fresh adjudication on the issue of disallowance of provision for doubtful debt of Rs. 24,31,091 and provision for doubtful advances of Rs. 2,15,496. Additionally, the ITAT had directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of depreciation on goodwill. The present appeal was filed for an assessment year that was not explicitly stated in the provided text, but it referenced an earlier assessment year for the same assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in setting aside the matter on the issue of disallowance of the claim of provision for doubtful debt of Rs. 24,31,091 and provision for doubtful advances of Rs. 2,15,496 to adjudicate afresh? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to allow the claim of depreciation on goodwill? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court dated March 21, 2018, in Tax Appeal No. 177 of 2018, concerning the same assessee for an earlier assessment year. For the first question, the Revenue noted the Court relied on the Full Bench decision in CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. ([2017] 397 ITR 55 (Guj) [FB]). For the second question, the Revenue referred to the decision in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302 (SC)).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/348/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 348 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 Versus TRIO ELEVATORS COMPANY(INDIA) LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 16/04/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal   dated   12.10.2017, raising following questions for our consideration: “[A] Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on   facts   in   setting   aside   the   matter   on   the issue of disallowance of the claim of provision for   doubtful   debt   of   Rs.24,31,091/­   and provision for doubtful advances of Rs.2,15,496/­ to adjudicate afresh ? [B] Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to allow the claim of depreciation on goodwill?” 2. Counsel for the Revenue brought to our notice a decision of this Court dated 21.03.2018 passed in Tax Appeal   No.177   of   2018,   where   both   these   questions Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/348/2018 ORDER concerning same assessee for the earlier assessment year   came   up   for   consideration.     Regarding   first question, the Court relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income­Tax v.   Vodafone   Essar   Gujarat   Ltd.  reported   in  [2017] 397 ITR 55 (Guj) [FB]. 3. Regarding   the   second   question,   the   Court referred to the decision in case of  CIT vs. Smifs Securities   Ltd.  reported   in  348   ITR   302   (SC)  and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 4. In   the   result,   without   recording   separate reasons, this Tax Appeal is also dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →