COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I. vs. M/S. M.R. SHAH & ASSOCIATES

O/TAXAP/660/2007 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 660 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. M.R. SHAH & ASSOCIATES....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 : 12/12/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT Page 1 of 3

O/TAXAP/660/2007 JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.08.2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in ITA No. 1843/Ahd/1999 for the Assessment Year 1996-07. 2. While

admitting

this

appeal

on 29.11.2007, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reducing the net profit rate to 8%, which gives an addition of Rs.12,23,339/-, despite agreeing with the finding of the CIT (A) that the claim of purchases to the extent of Rs.21,73,282/- was not substantiated and the labour charges were unverifiable ?” 3. Learned advocate for the appellant states that the amount involved in the present case is small one and there is low revenue effect, and therefore, as per CDBT Instruction, the revenue ought not to have come in appeal, and therefore, this appeal is required to be dismissed. In that view of the matter, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This appeal is dismissed accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Page 2 of 3

O/TAXAP/660/2007 JUDGMENT (K.J.THAKER, J) pawan Page 3 of 3