Gujarat High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Gujarat Alluminium Extrusion Ltd. - ... on 27 August, 2008
Author: K.A.Puj
Bench: K.A.Puj
TAXAP/514/2008 1/3 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL No. 514 of 2008
=========================================================
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT ALLUMINIUM EXTRUSION LTD. - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1,MR MANISH R BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 1,
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date : 27/08/2008
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
1. The revenue has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1997-98 proposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law for determination and consideration of this Court.
(A) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the deletion of expenses on the purchase of different items of machinery without appreciating that it was a case of replacement of old machineries?"
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Jun 28 01:55:01 IST 2016 TAXAP/514/2008 2/3 ORDER (B) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) whereby he had deleted the disallowance of the expenditure on development of new dies for replacement of old dies, by relying on their decision in respect of the assessment years 1993-94 and 1996-97 where similar expenditure was held as capital expenditure entitled only to depreciation?"
(C) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) whereby he deleted the addition of Rs.3,67,989/- in the value of closing stock towards excise duty?"
2. So far as the Question - A is concerned, for the reasons recorded by us today in Tax Appeal No.513 of 2008, in case of The Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. Gujarat Alluminium Extrusion Ltd., we have formulated the substantial question of law and hence the same is formulated for Assessment Year 1997-98 too.
3. So far as Question -B is concerned, it appears that there is some mistake in the Tribunal's Order. While upholding order the of the CIT(A) in respect of the ground regarding disallowance of Rs.5,62,898/- under the head "dies repairs", the Tribunal observed that it has already rejected the identical grounds raised by the revenue for the assessment years 1993-94 and HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Jun 28 01:55:01 IST 2016 TAXAP/514/2008 3/3 ORDER 1996-97. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has not rejected the revenue's ground on this issue and instead of upholding the order of CIT(A) the Tribunal has reversed the finding arrived at by the CIT(A). Hence, it is just and proper for the revenue to move appropriate application before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad for rectification of its order. We, therefore, do not formulate Question - B proposed by the revenue.
4. So far as Question - C is concerned, large number of Tax Appeals have been admitted by this Court. Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue has placed a copy of the order dated 23-7-2007 passed by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 1479 of 2006 under which the same question has been formulated by this Court as substantial question of law.
5. In view of above facts, this Tax Appeal is admitted in terms of the Questions - A and C referred to here-in-above. Notice to the other side. Additional paper-book, if any, be prepared within three months from today.
(K.A. Puj, J.) (Bankim N. Mehta, J.) /JVSatwara/ HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Jun 28 01:55:01 IST 2016