Gujarat High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 vs Synpol Products Pvt Ltd on 11 June, 2018
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia
C/TAXAP/531/2018 ORDER
`1IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 531 of 2018
==========================================================
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4
Versus
SYNPOL PRODUCTS PVT LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR.BANDISH SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 11/06/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Tax Appeal is ADMITTED for consideration of following substantial question of law.
"[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.34,01,275/ u/s 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
2. To be heard with Tax Appeal No.170 of 2018.
3. We notice that the Revenue has proposed following additional questions which read as under:
"[B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.16,50,326/ on account of depreciation and insurance on vehicle ?
[C] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has Page 1 of 3 C/TAXAP/531/2018 ORDER substantially erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s 14 A of the Income Tax Act?
[D] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of excess claim of exemption of Rs.45,55,582/ u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?"
4. In QuestionsB, the assessee had claimed depreciation on the vehicles purchased in the name of the director. The Tribunal allowed the depreciation observing that the control of the vehicle was retained by the company. This view is reiterated by this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Aravali Finlease Ltd. reported in [2012] 341 ITR 282 Guj). This question is therefore not considered.
5. QuestionsC and D have been considered by us in a separate order passed by us in Tax Appeal No.524 of 2018 and connected appeal. Without repeating the reasons, these questions are not considered.
6. With respect to QuestionE, we notice that the same pertains to disallowance of 54EC claim. The issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) v. Page 2 of 3
C/TAXAP/531/2018 ORDER Aditya Medisales Ltd. reported in [2014] 362 ITR 600 (Guj) and is therefore not considered.
7. Revenue is permitted to transpose the relevant documents from Tax Appeal No.530 of 2018.
(AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 3 of 3