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 2, Cited by 0]

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/533/2018                              ORDER



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/TAX APPEAL NO. 533 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   deletion   of   Rs.24,04,401/­   u/s   145A   of  the   Income Tax Act, 1961?"

2. Additional   question   suggested   by   the   Revenue  reads as under:

"[B] Whether   the   Appellate   Tribunal   has  substantially   erred   in   law   and   on   facts   in  deleting   the   addition   of   Rs.7,48,517/­   on  account of depreciation on motor vehicles ?

3. The   assessee   had   claimed   depreciation   on   the  vehicles purchased in the name of the director.  The  Tribunal allowed the depreciation observing that the  Page 1 of 2 C/TAXAP/533/2018 ORDER 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.

4. Revenue   is   permitted   to   transpose   the   relevant  documents from Tax Appeal No.532 of 2018.  

(AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 2 of 2