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 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Principal Commissioner Incometax, vs M/S Bayer Vapi Private Liited on 20 August, 2018

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia

       C/TAXAP/683/2018                                ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/TAX APPEAL NO. 683 of 2018

==========================================================
               PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOMETAX,
                             Versus
                  M/S BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LIITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) 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 : 20/08/2018

                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1.  Appeal is admitted for consideration of the  following substantial questions of law. 

"(B)     Whether   on   the   facts   and   in   the   circumstances of the case and in law, the   Hon'ble   ITAT   erred   in   holding   that   the   forward   foreign   currency   contracts   of   Rs.7,03,02,642/­   &   Exchange   Gain   of  Rs.37,37,339/­   of   the   assessee   pertains   to   its   business   income   and   thereby   allowing   deduction   u/s.80HHC   of   the   Act   on   these   amounts   ignoring   the   fact   that   the   gain   due   to   currency   fluctuation   is   not derived from the business activity of   the   assessee   to   allow   deduction   on   the   same   and   the   decision   of   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  CIT   Vs  Sterling Goods, 237 ITR 579, on the same   issue ?    
Page 1 of 2
C/TAXAP/683/2018 ORDER (D)   Whether   on   the   facts   and   the)  circumstances of the case and in law, the   Hon'ble   ITAT   erred   in   deleting   the  addition   of   Rs.1,36,72,735/­   made   on   account   of   excise   duty   refund   and   sales   tax receivable written off by the asessee   ignoring   the   fact   that   the   said   amount   had   never   been   shown   as   income   by   the   assessee   before   writing   off   the   same   which   is   in   violation   of   the   provisions   of   the   Sec.   36(2)(i)   of   the   I.T.Act,   1961?"

2.     We notice that Revenue has suggested few  more questions. However the amounts involved  either are too small or questions are facts  based.   

(AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) K.K. SAIYED Page 2 of 2