THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. LIVA HEALTHCARE PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/807/2018HC GujaratGJHC24026211201816 July 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad held that the issue was concluded against the revenue. The Court noted that the ITAT, in passing the impugned order for Assessment Year 2010-11, had relied on its earlier order concerning the same assessee for a previous assessment year. Crucially, the Court observed that an appeal filed by the revenue against the ITAT's order for the earlier assessment year (Tax Appeal No. 478/2016) had already been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on June 21, 2016. Therefore, in view of this concluded issue, the High Court found that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, specifically the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, has filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The appeal challenges an order dated August 22, 2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), "D" Bench, Ahmedabad, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The dispute concerns a disallowance of Rs. 70 lacs made under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to physicians' free samples. The ITAT had deleted this disallowance. The Revenue's appeal is based on a proposed question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 70 lacs under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to Physicians Free Samples? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contends that the ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 70 lacs. The Revenue's appeal is predicated on the proposed question of law challenging the Tribunal's decision. The Revenue relies on the fact that the ITAT's impugned order was based on its earlier order concerning the same assessee but for a prior assessment year. The Revenue notes that an appeal against that earlier order, Tax Appeal No. 478/2016, was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on June 21, 2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/807/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 807 of 2018 ====================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Versus LIVA HEALTHCARE PVT LTD ====================================== Appearance: MR MANISH BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE for MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

Date : 16/07/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) dated 22/08/2017 in ITA No.2204/Ahd/2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law; “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.70 lacs u/s 37(1) of the Act relating to Physicians Free Samples?” 2. We have heard Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/807/2018 ORDER Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. Considering the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears and it is not in dispute that while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order in the case of the very assessee but with respect to the earlier Assessment Year. It is reported that the Appeal against the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of the very assessee but with respect to the earlier Assessment Year, being Tax Appeal No.478/2016, has been dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 21/06/2016. Under the circumstances, so far as this Court is concerned, the issue is concluded against the revenue. 3. Under the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in view of the above concluded question in the case of the very assessee but with respect to the earlier Assessment Year. Under the circumstances, present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) siji Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →