Gujarat High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Astral Polytechnik ... on 17 July, 2017
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Biren Vaishnav
O/TAXAP/491/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 491 of 2017
==========================================================
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1....Appellant(s)
Versus
ASTRAL POLYTECHNIK LTD....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 17/07/2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following question for our consideration:
"Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and facts in deleting the addition in respect of deduction u/s. 80IC of Rs. 4,04,59,475/- for A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 6,87,73,362/- for A.Y. 2008-09 made by the Assessing Officer?"
2. The issue pertains to the assessee's claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act to its unit situated at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, which unit was eligible for such deduction. The Revenue, however, have dispute about the entire claim being granted on the ground that the profit expenditure relatable to the Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sun Aug 20 20:14:42 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/491/2017 ORDER marketing division and the brand value owned by foreign collaboration should have been disallowed. The CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal both came to a concurrent conclusion that there was no separate marketing division and therefore, there was no transfer of goods from eligible to non-eligible undertaking. Thus, in absence of any separate marketing division, there could not be separation of profit and expenditure. It was also found that the brand was owned by the foreign collaboration and there cannot be any profit attributable to such brand.
3. More importantly, the Tribunal noted that in the preceding assessment year 2007-08, the assessee had set up such a claim. The Assessing Officer had framed scrutiny assessment during which no disallowance was made. No attempt was made on part of the Revenue either to take such order in revision nor process of reopening of exemption was resorted to.
4. In such circumstances, we see no reason to interfere. No question of law arises. Tax appeal is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J.) Jyoti Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sun Aug 20 20:14:42 IST 2017