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

O/TAXAP/1041/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1041 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. 1MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI andHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKERDate : 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. 1498/Ahd/2004 for the Assessment Year 1990-91. 2. While admitting this appeal on 29.01.2007, this Court has framed the following substantial 2. question of law: “(A) Whether the decision of the Appellate Tribunal was correct that in holding that the assessee is not having permanent residence in India and hence the assessee's case is covered under Article 12-2 of the DTAA agreement with UK and tax is leviable at the concessional rate of 15 % as against 65 % charged by the Assessing Officer ?” 3.Heard the learned advocates appearing for 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. PAWAN (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J)