Gujarat High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4 vs Voltamp Transformers Ltd. on 14 March, 2018
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia
C/TAXAP/170/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL No. 170 of 2018
=============================================================
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4
Versus
VOLTAMP TRANSFORMERS LTD.
=============================================================
Appearance :
Mr MANISH BHATT Sr Advocate with Mrs MAUNA M BHATT, Advocate for the
PETITIONER
=============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
14th March 2018
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of the following substantial question of law :
"Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in deleting addition of CENVAT receivable of Rs. 4,11,74,780/= under Section 145A to the value of closing stock ?"
To be heard with Tax Appeal No. 748 of 2013. We notice that the Revenue has proposed two more questions, which read as under :-
Page 1 of 3
C/TAXAP/170/2018 ORDER
[i] "Whether the Tribunal is correct in law
and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT [A] in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 69,48,260/= under section 14A read with Rule 8D ?"
[ii] "Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 72,83,252/= being disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to the book profit computed under Section 115JB of the Act ?"
The first issue pertains to addition of Rs. 69.48 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act" for short] which the CIT [A] and the Tribunal deleted on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not recorded satisfaction about the inaccuracy in the assessee's account in this respect.
The second question is consequential to the first issue and relates to reflection of such disallowance for computing the assessee's book profit for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act.
Both these issues are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gujarat State Page 2 of 3 C/TAXAP/170/2018 ORDER Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited, reported in [2013] 358 ITR 323 [Guj], to which in fact, the Tribunal placed reliance.
These questions are, therefore, not considered.
[Akil Kureshi, J.] [B.N Karia, J.] Prakash Page 3 of 3