Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Bloom Decor Private Ltd....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/458/2009 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 458 of 2009 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?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 ?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 ?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-I....Appellant(s) Versus BLOOM DECOR PRIVATE LTD....Opponent(s) ====================================== Appearance: MR MANISH BHATT, SR ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1MR SN SOPARKAR, SR ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA Date : 03/12/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’) dated 06/06/2008 in ITA No. 2997/Ahd/2004 for the Assessment Year 2001-02, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal. 2.While admitting the present Tax Appeal, the Division Bench has framed/raised the following substantial question of law; “Whether the appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the order of the CIT(A) and thereby holding that export benefit adjustment amounting to Rs.1,79,05,996/- should be included while computing deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act?” 3.Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has vehemently submitted that the aforesaid question has been answered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC). 4.Shri S.N. Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is not in a position to dispute the above. No contrary decision has been pointed out. 5.Under the circumstances and considering the ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (Supra) to the facts of the present case, the ITAT has materially erred in holding that the export benefit adjustment amounting to Rs.1,79,05,996/- should be included while computing deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. 6.Under the circumstances and applying the ratio/law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (Supra), the aforesaid question raised/formulated in the present Tax Appeal reproduced hereinabove is answered in favour of the revenue. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT is hereby quashed and set aside . The present Tax Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. (M.R.SHAH, J.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Siji