Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. U.p.c. Ltd.....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/1040/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1040 of 2006 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ============================================================ ==== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?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 ?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-IV....Appellant(s) Versus U.P.C. LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 11/12/2014ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 10.03.2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in ITA No. 1497/Ahd/2004 for the Assessment Year 1989-90. 2. While admitting this appeal on 29.01.2007, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: “(A)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act was not valid ? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 10(4A) of the I.T.Act even though the sub section (4A) was substituted by sub section (ii) of the Section 10(4) and the exemption was not available to the assessee w.e.f. 01.04.1989 ? 3. Heard the learned advocates appearing for O/TAXAP/1040/2006 JUDGMENT the parties and considered the submissions. Learned advocate for the appellant states that the amount involved in the present case is small one and there is low revenue effect, and therefore, as per CDBT Instruction, the revenue ought not to have come in appeal, and therefore, this appeal is required to be dismissed. In that view of the matter, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This appeal is dismissed accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) pawan