Gujarat High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income ... vs Inox Leisure Ltd....Opponent(S) on 3 February, 2017
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
O/TAXAP/12/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 12 of 2017
With
TAX APPEAL NO. 13 of 2017
======================================
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VADODARA-
1....Appellant(s)
Versus
INOX LEISURE LTD....Opponent(s)
======================================
Appearance:
MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s)
No.1
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 03/02/2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'C' Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the learned tribunal") in ITA No.523/AHD/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and in ITA No.2552/AHD/2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following proposed question of law;
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) directing the Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:31:10 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/12/2017 ORDER AO to treat the entertainment tax exemption in respect of Multiplexes as capital receipt, not exigible to tax, without appreciating that the subsidy received by the assessee was after the completion of the cinema house and commencement of operation and used entirely for the business operation and therefore revenue in nature?"
[2.0] Shri S.N. Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - assessee has submitted that the proposed question of law raised in the present Appeals is answered against the revenue by this Court in the case of the very assessee with respect to the earlier Assessment Year 2007-08 in Tax Appeal No.111/2015,Tax Appeal No.110/2015 and Tax Appeal No.169/2012. It is submitted that therefore so far as this Court is concerned, the issue / question raised in the present Appeals is concluded, and therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Appeals.
[3.0] On the other hand, Shri K.M. Parikh, learned Counsel appearing appearing on behalf of the revenue has submitted that against the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No.111/2015, Tax Appeal No.110/2015 and Tax Appeal No.169/2012, revenue has preferred Appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted leave and the question is at large before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that while disposing of Tax Appeal No.110/2015, it is observed that if any view is taken by the Apex Court in the respective Civil Appeals it would hold the field, but it would be for the revenue to take Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:31:10 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/12/2017 ORDER appropriate steps and proceedings in this regard. Similar observations are made by another Division Bench while dismissing Tax Appeal No.111/2015. It is submitted that against the same, Appeals are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
[4.0] In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and with a view to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings instead of dismissing the present Appeals, which are in connection with the subsequent Assessment Year and for the earlier Assessment Years the question is at large before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that let the present Appeals be adjourned sine die. To be listed after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13385/2015 and other allied Appeals and on the note filed by either of the parties. Hence, both these Appeals are adjourned sine die. To be listed after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13385/2015 and other allied Appeals and /or on the note filed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of either of the parties.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) (B.N. KARIA, J.) Siji Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:31:10 IST 2017