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

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/972/2018HC GujaratGJHC24044340201830 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 appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that on the very same issue and concerning the same assessee, a Division Bench of the High Court had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeal in Tax Appeal No.481/2017 for earlier assessment years. The learned Tribunal had relied on its earlier order for the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-2009, which had been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, the issue involved in the present appeal was considered concluded against the Revenue in light of the prior decision. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1) has filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench “A”. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2011-2012 and challenges the ITAT's deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The disputed addition relates to a deduction claimed by the assessee, Astral Poly Technik Ltd., under Section 80IC. The AO had invoked provisions of Section 80IC(7) read with Section 80IA(8) to estimate profits derived from brand value and marketing activity, which the ITAT had deleted. The High Court noted that a Division Bench had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the very same issue for earlier assessment years in Tax Appeal No.481/2017, and the ITAT had relied on its own prior order concerning the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-2009, which was confirmed by the High Court.

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 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? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee is Astral Poly Technik Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in invoking Section 80IC(7) read with Section 80IA(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They argued that the AO rightly estimated profits derived from brand value and marketing activity, and the ITAT erred in deleting the addition made on this basis. The Revenue sought to argue that the ITAT had not appreciated the facts correctly in deleting the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IC,Section 80IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/972/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 972 of 2018 ================================================================ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Versus ASTRAL POLY TECHNIK LTD. ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

Date : 30/07/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench “A” passed in ITA No.2667/Ahd./2014 for the Assessment Year 2011- 2012, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeal with the 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 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?” 2. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt appearing on behalf of the appellant – Revenue. Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/972/2018 ORDER 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that on the very issue and the very Assessee, with respect to the earlier assessment year/s, the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No.481/2017 had dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Revenue. The learned Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order in the case of the very assessee but with respect to the earlier Assessment Year : 2008-2009, which has now been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 4. Under the circumstances, the issue involved in the present Appeal is now concluded against the Revenue in light of the decision rendered in Tax Appeal No.481/2017. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal. Therefore, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (M.R. SHAH, J) Sd/- (A.Y. KOGJE, J) CAROLINE 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 →