Gujarat High Court
Pr.Commissioner Of Income ... vs Gujarat State Electricity Corporation ... on 28 March, 2016
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani, G.R.Udhwani
O/TAXAP/993/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 993 of 2015
==========================================================
PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VADODARA-1....Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 28/03/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. The appellant revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has challenged the order dated 13.3.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'D' (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No.1824/Ahd/2010 for assessment year 2007- 08 by proposing the following question stated to be a substantial question of law :-
"Whether Tribunal was justified on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating the undisputed fact that the unascertained liability cannot be excluded in the provision of gratuity for the computation of book profit under section 115JB of Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Mar 30 00:55:30 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/993/2015 ORDER Rs.401.16 lacs in the A.Y. 2007-08?"
2. Mr. Ketan Parikh, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant has submitted that while the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by a decision of this court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Inox Leisure Limited, (2013) 351 ITR 314 (Guj.) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, and that against the said judgment, the revenue has preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which is pending consideration.
3. Heard Mr. Manish Shah, learned advocate for the respondent.
4. It being an admitted position between the parties that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by a decision of this court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Inox Leisure Limited, (supra) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.
5. For the reasons recorded in the decision of this court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Inox Leisure Limited (supra), it cannot be said that the appeal gives rise to any question of law so as to warrant interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.)
Page 2 of 3
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Mar 30 00:55:30 IST 2016
O/TAXAP/993/2015 ORDER
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.)
zgs
Page 3 of 3
HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Mar 30 00:55:30 IST 2016