Assistant Commissioner Income Tax-Vapi v. M/S Mitsu Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 350 of 2020 ========================================================= = ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-VAPI VersusM/S MITSU LIMITED ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Opponent(s) No. 1========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA andHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORAHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 05/01/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) 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, Ahmedabad, dated 04.05.2020 in ITA No.1671/AHD/2006 for the A.Y. 2002-2003.directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, dated 04.05.2020 in ITA No.1671/AHD/2006 for the A.Y. 2002-2003. 2. We have heard Mrs. Kalpana Raval, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue and Mr. R.K.Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee.Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue and Mr. R.K.Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 3. The revenue has proposed the following three substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court :substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court : “1. Whether on the facts of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in hodling Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in hodling that receipt of Rs.14,55,41,760/- in the form of non-compete fees are capital in nature and not chargeable to tax ? 2. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.45,215/- on account of sales promotion expenses done by the AO on estimates basis without any justification even though no details were submitted before the AO to substantiate the claim put by the assessee ? 3. Whether on the facts of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in holding that the miscelleneous income of Rs.54,316/- is eligible for deduction u/s. 80 HHC even though the assessee company could not justify that the same was derived from export and hence cannot be held eligible for deduction u/s. 80 HHC ? 4. We take notice of the fact that with respect to the questions Nos.2 and 3 respectively, the amount involved is Rs.45,215/- and Rs.54,316/- respectively. So far as the question No.1 is concerned, the same has also been answered by this Court while disposing of the Tax Appeal No.800 of 2013 with respect to very same assessee vide judgment and order dated 04.07.2016. We take notice of the fact that in Tax Appeal No.800 of 2013, the very same question with respect to upholding to the addition of a particular amount towards non- compete fees was raised. The questions as C/TAXAP/350/2020 ORDER proposed by the revenue in the said appeal ultimately came to be answered in favour of the assessee. The very same question of law has been raised in the present case with respect to the very same assessee. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) SUCHIT (ILESH J. VORA,J)