PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 vs. GULMOHAL GREENS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB LTD

C/TAXAP/510/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 510 of 2018 ================================================================ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 Versus GULMOHAL GREENS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB LTD ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

Date : 24/07/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench ‘B’ Bench, Ahmedabad in ITA No.2619/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011, by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the Appeal preferred by the assessee and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeal with the following questions of law :- “(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,38,63,800/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of entrance fees received by the assessee? Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/510/2018 ORDER (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate that in this case the principal amount is to be returned back to the assessee without interest after 25 years; thus, the present value of the future liability is far less (which can be calculated by arithmetic formula) and therefore, the difference between the amount actually collected and the present value of the future liability should be subjected to tax in the year of receipt? (C) Without prejudice to the above, whether the Appellate Tribunal should have held that such difference (as noted at Point No.1.1) should be broken up in 25 years and made taxable for the next 25 years as has been held by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Unique Mercantile Services Ltd [2015] 56 taxmann.com 429 (Gujarat)?” 2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has relied upon and considered its own decision rendered earlier in respect of the very assessee but in respect of the earlier assessment years. It is reported that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the very assessee in respect of the earlier assessment years upon which reliance has been placed by the learned ITAT while passing of the impugned order were the subject matter of consideration in Tax Appeal No.608/2016 and other allied Tax Appeals. It is reported that by a detailed judgment and order dated 16.11.2016 in the above Tax Appeals, the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/510/2018 ORDER the aforesaid Appeals preferred by the Revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned ITAT. The aforesaid is not disputed by learned Advocate Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 3. Under the circumstances, the questions raised in the present Appeal is squarely covered against the Revenue in light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Tax Appeal No.608/2016 and allied Appeals (in respect of the earlier years). 4. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal. Hence, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (M.R. SHAH, J) Sd/- (A.Y. KOGJE, J) CAROLINE Page 3 of 3