Gujarat High Court
Asstt.Commissioner vs M/S.P.R.Ship on 1 July, 2011
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/35/2003 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 35 of 2003
With
TAX
APPEAL No. 36 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Sd/-
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ? NO
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
=========================================================
ASSTT.COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX - Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S.P.R.SHIP
BREAKING CORPORN. - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR RK PATEL for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date
: 21/04/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. In these appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 7.5.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, 'A', Ahmedabad in ITA No.4082/Ahd/1995 and ITA No.4083/Ahd/1995 respectively. While admitting these appeals, this Court had vide order dated 25.2.2003 formulated the following identically worded substantial question of law in both the appeals:
"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal has not substantially erred in law and on facts in allowing relief u/s. 80HH and 80I of the Act to the assessee who was engaged in the business of ship breaking activity which did not amount to manufacturing activity and hence the assessee firm could not be considered as an industrial undertaking ?"
2. Mr. R.K. Patel, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation And others Vs. C.I.T., (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC), to submit that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded in favour of the assessee by the said decision.
3. Ms. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of law. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation And others Vs. C.I.T., (supra) has held that the assessee was entitled to allowance of deduction under section 80HH and 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of profits from ship breaking activity, because the ship breaking activity gave rise to the production of a distinct and different article.
5. In the aforesaid premises, following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation And others Vs. C.I.T., (supra), the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, that is, the Appellate Tribunal had not erred in law and on facts in allowing relief under section 80HH and section 80I of the Act to the assessee who was engaged in the business of ship breaking activity.
6. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(H.N. Devani, J.) Sd/-
(R.M. Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT Top