Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Siyaram Metals Pvt Ltd - Opponent(S) on 18 April, 2011
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sonia Gokani
TAXAP/2600/2009 1/2 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL No. 2600 of 2009
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Appellant(s)
Versus
SIYARAM METALS PVT LTD - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR M.R.BHATT, SR.ADVOCATE WITH MS MAUNA M BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 1,
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 18/04/2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of the following substantial questions of law:
(A) "Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred in treating the processes employed by the assessee in segregating the metal scrap from cable scrap as 'Manufacture or produce' within the meaning of Section 10B of the Income-Tax Act?"
(B) "Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred in treating the processes employed by the assessee in segregating the metal scrap from mixed metal scrap as HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Tue Jul 12 00:06:11 IST 2016 TAXAP/2600/2009 2/2 ORDER 'Manufacture or produce' within the meaning of Section 10B of the Income Tax Act?"
(C) "Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred grievously in setting aside the issue relating to DEEMED EXPORT ?"
(D) "Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing deduction u/s.80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"
(E) "Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the order of the CIT (A) in allowing deduction u/s.80HHC and also in not adjudicating upon the ground of the revenue that the CIT (A) erred in not allowing opportunity to the assessing officer while admitting the additional grounds, as required under rule 46A(3) of the IT Rule, 1962?"
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (Ms.SONIA GOKANI, J.) (ashish) HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Tue Jul 12 00:06:11 IST 2016