THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ANKUR PROTEIN INDUSTRIES LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/579/2019HC GujaratGJHC24043693201926 August 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. RAO3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that both questions of law raised by the Revenue were no longer res integra. For the first issue concerning unabsorbed depreciation, the Court relied on its prior decision in General Motors India Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 354 ITR 244. For the second issue regarding the fresh claim of business expenses, the Court referred to its decision in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mitesh Implex reported in 367 ITR 85. As both proposed questions of law were squarely covered by these precedents, the High Court found no merit in the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and consequently, the connected tax appeal was also dismissed.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns two tax appeals filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad 'C' Bench, dated December 13, 2018, for Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 against Ankur Protein Industries Ltd. The ITAT's order was in favor of the assessee. The appeals were heard analogously as they involved the same assessee and identical issues. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad was considering these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following two questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and facts in allowing the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,74,81,609, following Circular No. 14 of 2001, without appreciating that the amendment to the Finance Act was prospective? (Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is implicitly relevant here). 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and facts in allowing a fresh claim of business expenses of Rs. 62,11,877, despite the assessee not having made such a claim in the return of income? (Sections 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is implicitly relevant here). Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record specific contentions for the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was in their favor. Revenue: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in allowing the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation by following a circular when the Finance Act amendment was prospective. The Revenue also contended that the ITAT erred in allowing a fresh claim for business expenses that was not originally filed in the return of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 32,Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/579/2019 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 579 of 2019 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 580 of 2019

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO

========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? NO ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 Versus ANKUR PROTEIN INDUSTRIES LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MANISH J SHAH(1320) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO

Date : 26/08/2019

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/579/2019 JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. Since the issues raised in both the tax­appeals are the same and the assessee is also the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The Tax Appeal No.579 of 2019 is treated as the lead matter. 3. This Tax Appeal under Section­260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short  'The Act, 1961'] is at the instance of the  revenue  and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'C' Bench, Ahmedabad dated 13/12/2018 in the IT(SS)A No.110/AHD/2016 for the A.Y.­2006­07. 4. The revenue has proposed the following two questions of law for the consideration of this Court. [A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in allowing   carry   forward   of   unabsorbed   depreciation   of Rs.3,74,81,609/­   following   Circular   No.14   of   2001   without appreciating that the amendment to the Finance Act was prospective? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in allowing fresh claim of business expenses of Rs.62,11,877/­ despite the fact  that   the   assessee  had   not  made   such   claim  in  the   return   of income? 5. The first question is no longer res­integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of General Motors India Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 354 ITR 244 and the second question as proposed by the revenue is also no longer res­integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of  Commissioner of Income­tax Vs. Mitesh Implex reported in 367 ITR 85. Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/579/2019 JUDGMENT 6. As both the proposed questions of law are squarely covered, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The connected tax appeal would also stands dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) aruna Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →