PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. ASTRAL POLY TECHNIK LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/924/2018HC GujaratGJHC24038982201824 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 dismissed the Tax Appeal. The Court noted that the dispute concerned a deduction under Section 80IC. The ITAT, in its impugned order, had relied on its own decision concerning the same assessee for an earlier assessment year and a similar deduction under Section 80IC. Crucially, the Court observed that the decision of the ITAT in the case of the very assessee for the earlier assessment year had been confirmed by a Division Bench of the same High Court in Tax Appeal No.481/2017. This fact was not disputed by the learned advocate for the revenue. Therefore, the Court concluded that the question raised in the present appeal was concluded against the revenue by the prior Division Bench decision. No substantial question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, has filed a Tax Appeal against an order dated January 10, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad 'B' Bench. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2012-13 and challenges the ITAT's deletion of an addition of Rs. 5.31 Crore concerning deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had invoked provisions of Section 80IC(7) read with Section 80IA(8) to estimate profits derived from brand value and marketing activity. The ITAT, in its impugned order, relied on its previous decision for the same assessee concerning an earlier assessment year and a similar deduction under Section 80IC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and facts in deleting the addition in respect of deduction u/s 80IC of Rs.5.31 Crore without appreciating that the provisions of Section 80IC(7) r.w.s. 80IA(8) of the Act were rightly invoked by the AO while estimating the profits derived from brand value and marketing activity? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 80IC and Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition. The AO had correctly invoked Section 80IC(7) read with Section 80IA(8) to estimate profits from brand value and marketing activity. The Revenue relied on the AO's invocation of these provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IC,Section 80IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/924/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 924 of 2018 ====================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Versus ASTRAL POLY TECHNIK LTD ====================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1 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) [1.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 10/01/2018 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad “B” Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in ITA No.3136/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law; “Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and facts in deleting the addition in respect of deduction u/s 80IC of Rs.5.31 Crore without appreciating the facts that the provisions of Section 80IC(7) r.w.s. 80IA(8) of the Act were rightly invoked by the AO while estimating the profits derived from brand value and marketing activity?” Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/924/2018 ORDER [2.0] We have heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the dispute is with respect to the deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. From the impugned order, it appears and it is not in dispute that while passing the impugned order the learned Tribunal has relied upon its own decision in the case of the very assessee but in respect of earlier Assessment Year and with respect to similar deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. It is reported that the decision of the learned Tribunal in the case of the very assessee and in respect of the earlier Assessment Year has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No.481/2017. The aforesaid is not disputed by Mrs Mauna Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. Under the circumstances, the question raised in the present Tax Appeal is concluded against the revenue in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the very assessee in Tax Appeal No.481/2017. Under the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. Hence, present Tax 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 80IC

All 1,180 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →