The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Gujarat Maritime Borad
2021 Latest Caselaw 916 Guj

        C/TAXAP/26/2021                                         ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          R/TAX APPEAL NO. 26 of 2021

==========================================================
        THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
                           Versus
                  GUJARAT MARITIME BORAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
G H VIRK(7392) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                                Date : 20/01/2021

                                 ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

1. This tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act, 1961") is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Ahmedabad dated 01.06.2020 in the ITA No.2526/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue has proposed the following three questions of law for the consideration of this Court;

"(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in negating the findings of the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer denying the benefits of Section 11 and 12 of the Act by invoking proviso to Section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the Act?

(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in allowing the accumulation of 15% of Rs.93,59,17,865/- without

C/TAXAP/26/2021 ORDER

appreciating the fact that once the provision of Section 2(15) r.w.s 13(8) is applicable, the assessee forfeits all the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act?

(C ) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the deduction in the fixed assets of Rs.145, 96,81,521/- without appreciating the fact that once the provision of Section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) is applicable, the assessee forfeits all the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act?"

2. We have heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and Mr. G.H. Virk, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.

3. All the three questions, referred to above, as proposed by the Revenue are no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this High Court rendered in Tax Appeal No.157 of 2020 and allied appeals, decided on 20th September, 2020.

4. In view of the aforesaid, this tax appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J)

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

Vahid