COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II V. GUJARAT GAS CO LTD

TAXAP/540/2011

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income Tax-II as the appellant and Gujarat Gas Co Ltd as the respondent. The core issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the entire principal component included in the lease rent from the taxable income, which amounted to Rs.2,46,90,915 as opposed to Rs.1,29,04,015 previously allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's decision was based on its earlier ruling in a similar case (ITA No.2868 and 3572/Ahd/2007) and was affirmed by the High Court in previous appeals. The Revenue's argument was that the authorities should ensure that their orders do not result in the income falling below the returned income, referencing a Supreme Court decision in Goetz India Ltd. However, the High Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 702354 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Goetz India Ltd. (CIT 284 ITR 323)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANISH SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: MAUNA BHATT
• Keywords: Assessing Officer; Income tax appellate tribunal; Lease Rent; Tax appeal; Principal Component
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"TAXAP/540/2011 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 540 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT GAS CO LTD - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MANISH J SHAH for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 14/06/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) TAXAP/540/2011 2/3 JUDGMENT We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the Revenue, in this T ax Appeal. This T ax Appeal has been filed by the Revenue on the following proposed substantial question of law: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the entire principal component included in the lease rent i.e. Rs.2,46,90,915/- as against Rs.1,29,04,015/- allowed by the Assessing Officer and thereby directing the Assessing Officer to assess the income below the returned income?” 2. The Department filed an appeal before the T ribunal against the order dated 05.09.2008 passed under Section 154 of the Income T ax Act by the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the entire principal component included in the lease rent of Rs.2,46,90,915/- as against Rs.1,29,04,015/- allowed by the Assessing Officer. The T ribunal dismissed the appeal of the Department relying on its own decision in ITA No.2868 and 3572/Ahd/2007 dated 12.05.2009 relevant to Assessment Year 2001-02. Against the order of the T ribunal dated 15.09.2009, the Department filed two appeals before this Court on the ground that all the concerned authorities are bound to ensure that the order passed by them does not result in income falling below the returned income as per the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (CIT 284 ITR 323). This Court has dismissed both the T ax Appeals being T ax Appeal No. 953 of 2010 and T ax Appeal No.954 of 2010 by a common judgement dated 10.08.2011. 3. Relying on the earlier order of the T ribunal dated 15.05.2009, which has been affirmed by this Court on 10.08.2011, Income T ax Appellate T ribunal has decided the Revenue's appeal, and has rejected it. We do not TAXAP/540/2011 3/3 JUDGMENT find any error in the order passed by the Income T ax Appellate T ribunal. The proposed question of law is concluded by the judgment of this Court and no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. This T ax Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (V.M. SAHAI, J.) (N.V. ANJARIA, J.) (SN DEVU PPS) "