Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. Opponent(S) on 9 February, 2009
Author: K.S.Radhakrishnan
Bench: K.S.Radhakrishnan
TAXAP/189220/2008 1/2 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL No. 1892 of 2008
=============================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant(s)
Versus
NIRMA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. Opponent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 1,
=============================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date : 09/02/2009
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:
"A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee's right in the intangible assets was self generated rather than acquired by succession?
B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the disclosure of information in the return of income by the assessee was bonafide, ignoring the fact that intangible were not "self generated" in the hands of the assessee?
C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in considering the assessee's explanation as bonafide particularly when the mode of acquisition of rights in intangible assets was not disclosed in the return of income, rather it was falsely claimed as `self generated' instead of by succession, which would have resulted in substantial loss of revenue, if the case was not taken into scrutiny?
D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in considering the assessee's explanation and reply furnished during the course of assessment proceedings as bonafide although the same were furnished under constraints, and continuous persistence of Assessing Officer? E. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Explanation1 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sat Jun 18 03:10:18 IST 2016 TAXAP/189220/2008 2/2 ORDER below Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable in the case of the assessee and accordingly in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c)?
Learned counsel also referred to Union of India and others v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others reported in [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC).
Admit.
Issue notice to the other side. Additional Paper Book, if any, be filed within three months from today.
(K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, C.J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.) [sn devu] pps HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sat Jun 18 03:10:18 IST 2016