Gujarat High Court
Dcit Circle 1(2) Baroda vs Inox Leisure Ltd....Opponent(S) on 11 March, 2015
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, S.H.Vora
O/TAXAP/111/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 111 of 2015
================================================================
DCIT CIRCLE 1(2) BARODA....Appellant(s)
Versus
INOX LEISURE LTD....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 11/03/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Ahmedabad passed in ITA No.1097/Ahd/2010 for AY 2007-2008, the revenue has preferred the present tax appeal to consider the following questions of law.
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) directing the Assessing Officer to treat the entertainment tax exemption in respect of Multiplexes as capital receipt, not exigible to tax, without appreciating that the subsidy received by the assessee was after the completion of the cinema house and commencement of operation and used entirely for the business operation, and therefore, Page 1 of 3 O/TAXAP/111/2015 ORDER revenue in nature?
(ii) Whether the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,77,63,638/- made, ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied upon by the Ld. CIT (A)? "
2. Today, when the present matter is taken up for final hearing, Shri K.M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has fairly conceded that against the very impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, however with respect to AY 2006-2007 passed in ITA No.441 of 2010, the department preferred Tax Appeal No.110 of 2015 and raising the very questions of law, which are raised in the present appeal and by order dated 16.2.2015, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal, however, with the observation that if any view is taken by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8119 of 2013 arising from the other High Courts and in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15773 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No.6226 of 2013, in that case, it would hold the field, but it would not be for the revenue to take appropriate steps and proceedings in this regard.
3. It is reported that the appeal against the decision of this Court with respect to earlier three assessment years is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, there is no stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, as on today, the view taken by this Court with respect to earlier assessment years holds the field.
4. Considering the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.2.2015 passed in Tax Appeal No.110 of Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/111/2015 ORDER 2015, which had arisen out of the very impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, but with respect to assessment year 2006-2007, for the reasons stated in the said order, we dismiss the present appeal for AY 2007-2008 also, however, with the observations that if any contrary view is taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment and order passed by this Court with respect to earlier assessment years with respect to the issues involved in that case is upset by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in that case, it will be open for the revenue to take appropriate steps and proceedings in this regard inclusive of filing the review application in the present appeal and/or even to pray for recalling of the present order, as in that case, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would hold the field.
5. With this, present tax appeal is dismissed.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) (S.H.VORA, J.) shekhar Page 3 of 3