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 3, Cited by 9]

Bombay High Court

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- ... vs Jagdishprasad M. Joshi on 23 January, 2019

Author: M.S. Sanklecha

Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S. Sanklecha

 Uday S. Jagtap                                           1504-16-ITXA-7=.doc



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                      INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 2016

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1                         .. Appellant
       v/s.
Shri Jagdishprasad M. Joshi                              .. Respondent

Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr. R. Murlidhar a/w Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. DATED : 23 rd JANUARY, 2019 P.C.

1. The tax appeal is admitted for consideration on following substantial question of law :-

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in saying that the inter corporate deposits (ICD hereafter) are not loan and advances for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"

2. To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No.782 of 2011.

3. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Tribunal. This would enable the Tribunal to keep the papers and proceedings relating to the present appeal available, to be produced when sought for by the Court.




                                                                          1 of 2




::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019                     ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 01:38:00 :::
  Uday S. Jagtap                                           1504-16-ITXA-7=.doc



4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service.

5. We notice that the Revenue has proposed one more question, which reads as under :-

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in confirming the order of the CIT(A) allowing deduction u/s 80IB without considering the facts and disregarding the provision of Section 80IB(2)(i) that the business of the assessee was set up by splitting up or reconstruction of the business of an existing concern having the same nature of business and manufacturing similar items controlled by the same promoter?"

6. Learned Counsel for the parties point out that identical issue in case of very assessee had come up for consideration before this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1857 of 2014. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by order dated 26th July, 2018. The said question is, therefore, not considered.

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.) 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 01:38:00 :::