COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I. vs. AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law on its merits. Instead, the Court noted that the amount involved in the present case was small, and the revenue effect was less than Rs. 1 lakh. Citing CBDT Instruction No. 1979 dated 27th March, 2000 and 02 of 2005, which stipulate that appeals should not be filed where the total revenue effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh, the Court decided not to entertain the appeal. Consequently, the questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of the smallness of the amount. Liberty was granted to the revenue to revive the appeal in case of difficulty. No finding was given on the specific issue of the deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,90,000/-.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I (the appellant-revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad challenging an order dated 10.08.2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to ITA No. 3179/Ahd/2002 for the assessment year 1999-2000. The appeal was admitted on 25.07.2007, and the High Court framed a substantial question of law concerning the deletion of an addition of Rs. 6,90,000/- made by the revenue. This addition was based on work completed by a sub-contractor, an associate concern, and the deletion was made by the ITAT on the ground that no bill was raised by the sub-contractor.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,90,000/- made on the basis of work completed by the sub-contractor, an associate concern, by relying on the fact that no bill was raised by the sub-contractor? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (Amarshiv Construction Pvt. Ltd.) before the High Court. The High Court's decision was based on other grounds. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the Tribunal was wrong in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,90,000/- made on account of work completed by a sub-contractor, an associate concern, despite no bill being raised by the sub-contractor. The revenue sought to challenge the ITAT's finding on this issue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
O/TAXAP/541/2007 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 541 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 AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR RK PATEL, 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/541/2007 JUDGMENT
Date : 22/12/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 10.08.2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA No. 3179/Ahd/2002 for the assessment year 1999-2000. 2. While admitting this appeal on 25.07.2007, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,90,000/- made on the basis of work completed by the sub-contractor, an associate concern, by relying on the fact that no bill was raised by sub-contractor? 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. Page 2 of 3
O/TAXAP/541/2007 JUDGMENT (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) divya Page 3 of 3
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
