Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv vs L G Chaudhary....Opponent(S) on 7 October, 2014
Bench: Harsha Devani, Sonia Gokani
O/TAXAP/1035/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL No. 1035 of 2014
With
TAX APPEAL No. 1036 of 2014
================================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV....Appellant(s)
Versus
L G CHAUDHARY....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
Mr. NITIN K MEHTA, Advocate for the Appellant
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
7th October 2014
COMMON ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
The appellantRevenue in these Tax Appeals under section 260A of the Incometax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"] has challenged the common order dated 28 th February 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad "D" Bench by proposing the following question, stated to be a substantial question of law : "Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in restoring back to the file of Assessing Officer the issue regarding disallowance under section 40[a](ia) of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,34,60,181/= with a direction to Page 1 of 3 O/TAXAP/1035/2014 ORDER follow the decision in the case of Virgin Creation of Calcutta High Court wherein it has been held that amendment to Section 40 [a](ia) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 is having retrospective effect ?"
As is apparent from the question proposed, the only issue raised in the present appeals is as to whether or not, the amendment to section 40 [a](ia) of the Act, as amended by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f 1st April 2010, has retrospective effect. It is an admitted position that the controversy involved in the present cases stands concluded by a decision of this Court rendered in Tax Appeal No. 412 of 2013 and allied matters, wherein, it has been held that section 40[a](ia) of the Act, as amended by Finance Act 2010 w.e.f 1st April 2010, has retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, the issue stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. It is, therefore, not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.
For the reasons stated in the above decision of this Court, it cannot be stated that the impugned common order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference.
The tax appeals, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed. Page 2 of 3
O/TAXAP/1035/2014 ORDER
{Harsha Devani, J.}
{Ms. Sonia Gokani, J.}
Prakash*
Page 3 of 3