Gujarat High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S Shree Rama Multitech Ltd on 14 July, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 279 of 2024
With
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 323 of 2024
==========================================================
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3
Versus
M/S SHREE RAMA MULTITECH LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAITHILI D MEHTA(3206) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MRS SWATI SOPARKAR(870) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel
Ms. Maithili D. Mehta for the appellant
and learned advocate Mr. B. S. Soparkar
for the respondent.
2. Issue involved in both the Tax Appeals
is identical and therefore, they have been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
heard together and would be disposed of by
this common judgment.
3. Tax Appeal No.279/2024 under section
260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For
short "the Act") is arising out of ITA
No.1500/AHD/2019 for Assessment Year 2012-
2013, whereas Tax Appeal No.323/2024 is
arising out of ITA No.1501/AHD/2019 for
Assessment Year 2013-2014.
4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Ahmedabad "C" Bench, Ahmedabad (For short
"the Tribunal") by common judgment and
order dated 8.11.2023 disposed of the
appeals filed by the Revenue for both the
assessment years.
5. In Tax Appeal No.279/2024, following
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
substantial question of law is proposed by
the Revenue:
"Whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case and in
law, the ITAT erred in deleting the
disallowance of Rs. 25,18,441/- made
by AO u/s 24 of the IT Act?"
6. In Tax Appeal No.323/2024, following
substantial question of law is proposed by
the Revenue:
"Whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case and in
law, the ITAT erred in deleting the
disallowance of Rs. 22,91,555/- made
by AO u/s 24 of the IT Act?"
7. The Assessing Officer disallowed the
claim under section 24 of the Act holding
that the respondent assessee had rented
out its business unit located at
Pondicherry and offered income under the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
head of income "Income from House
Property". The Assessing Officer
considered the income generated from the
business unit to be income under the head
"Business & Profession" and disallowed the
deduction towards municipal tax and
standard deduction under section 24(1) of
the Act though the respondent assessee
contended before the Assessing officer
that similar addition made for Assessment
year 2011-2012 was deleted by CIT(Appeals)
in the First Appeal.
8. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an
appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who allowed
the appeal following earlier year's
decision for Assessment Year 2011-2012
holding that the Act does not
differentiate between the factory building
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
or in other building for the purpose of
computation of income under the head
"Income from House Property". As long as
it is a factory building and the land
appurtenant thereto have been let out, the
same is covered under the house property
as referred to in section 22 of the Act.
9. Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred
an appeal before the Tribunal. The
respondent assessee contended that order
of CIT(Appeals) was also confirmed by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore,
confirmed and upheld the order passed by
CIT(Appeals).
10. Thus there are concurrent findings of
fact that the respondent assessee let out
the factory building on rent which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
offered to tax as "Income from House
Property". We are therefore, of the
opinion that Tribunal has not committed
any error and no substantial question of
law arises from the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Tribunal.
11. Both the appeals fail and are
accordingly dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
RAGHUNATH R NAIR
