Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Commissioner Of Income Tax I vs Adani Exports Ltd....Opponent(S) on 7 October, 2014

Bench: Harsha Devani, Sonia Gokani

         O/TAXAP/1146/2014                                           ORDER




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


                       TAX APPEAL  No. 1146 of 2014

================================================================
           COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I....Appellant(s)
                            Versus
               ADANI EXPORTS LTD....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
Mr M.R BHATT Sr Advocate with Mrs. MAUNA M BHATT, Advocate for the Appellant
================================================================


                   CORAM: HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
                              and
                              HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI 
                              7th October 2014


ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

Heard Mr. M.R Bhatt, learned senior advocate for the appellant. Admit.

The   following   substantial   questions   of   law   arise   for   our  consideration :­ {A} "Whether   the   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal  has   substantially   erred   in   not   appreciating   the  Explanation   (b)   to   Section   35D   (3)   clearly   defining  "capital   employed"   in   the   business   of   a   company   as  issued   share   capital,   debenture   and   long   terms  borrowings ?"

Page 1 of 2

            O/TAXAP/1146/2014                                          ORDER



               {B}      "Whether   the   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal 

has   substantially   erred   in   holding   that   since   the  amendment to Section 69C of the Income­tax Act, 1961  has been brought in with effect from 1st April 1999 and  the payment pertains to 1995­96, the amendment is not  applicable and hence the unexplained expenses were to  be allowed to the assessee ?"

{C} "Whether   the   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal  has substantially erred in allowing the assessee's plea  for not charging interest under section 234, 234B and  234C   in   relation   to   disallowance   upheld   on   Marine  Division   under   section   80HHC   particularly   when   the  disallowance   in   relation   to   Marine  Division   has   been  upheld by the Tribunal itself ?"

To be heard with Tax Appeal No. 1088 of 2014.

{Harsha Devani, J.} {Ms. Sonia Gokani, J.} Prakash* Page 2 of 2