Gujarat High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Gujarat Alkalies And Chemicals Ltd on 24 September, 2018
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia
C/TAXAP/1147/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1147 of 2018
==========================================================
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VADODARA 1
Versus
GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 24/09/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law:
"Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the assessee had adopted rate on which the GEB supplied power to its consumers ignoring the rate on which power generating company supplied its power to GEB?"
2. We notice that the issue is decided against the Revenue in case of this very assessee in Tax Appeal No. 544 of 2016. However, we were informed that SLP against such judgement is entertained and appeal is pending and on this basis, this Court has entertained similar appeals being Tax Appeal No. 937 of 2018 and connected appeal. We were also informed Page 1 of 2 C/TAXAP/1147/2018 ORDER that the issue is recurring and arises in case of large number of assessees within and outside the State.
3. We notice that the Revenue has proposed two more questions which read as under:
"A. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,51,000/- made on account of amortization of lease rent paid as it is a capital expenditure which cannot be allowed as deduction as per Income Tax Act, 1961?
B. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in restricting the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act to Rs. 1 lac from Rs. 180.06 lacs, without appreciating that the assessee was maintaining mixed funds and failed to establish that it has utilized its own surplus funds for investment yielding tax exempt dividends which was contrary to the ratio in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. and othrs. vs. CIT (SC) (in CA Nos. 104-109 of 2015 dated 12.02.2018)?"
4. Question A was dealt with in Tax Appeal No. 578 of 2016 and dismissed on 03.10.2016. Likewise, issue similar to one raised in question B was examined by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 1065 of 2018 and connected appeals which were rejected on 27.08.2018. These two additional questions are therefore not entertained.
(AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) JYOTI V. JANI Page 2 of 2