Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Gujarat Industrial Developmentcorporationintaxappeal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 535 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 536 of 2018With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 537 of 2018With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 539 of 2018 ================================================================COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)VersusGUJARAT INDUSTIRAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD ================================================================ Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 07/08/2018 COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned common order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench ‘D’ in ITA No.427/Ahd./2017 for the Assessment Year : 2013-2014, ITA No.544/Ahd./2017 for the Assessment Year : 2013-2014, ITA No.2738/Ahd./2016 for the Assessment Year : 2012-2013 and ITA No.2700/Ahd./2016 for the Assessment Year : 2012-common order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench ‘D’ in ITA No.427/Ahd./2017 for the Assessment Year : 2013-2014, ITA No.544/Ahd./2017 for the Assessment Year : 2013-2014, ITA No.2738/Ahd./2016 for the Assessment Year : 2012-2013 and ITA No.2700/Ahd./2016 for the Assessment Year : 2012- 2013, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following proposed questions of law :- “[A] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in allowing the assessee’s appeal, negating the finding of the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing officer denying the benefits of section 11 and 12 of the Act? [B] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 and 12 which the Assessing Officer disallowed by invoking the provision of Section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the Act? [C] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of addition of Rs.1365,83,14,363/- made on account of premium on land and shades back to the Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place to uphold the decision of AO on merit? [D] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of depreciation allowance for re-examination at the end of Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place to uphold the decision of AO? [E] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of carry forward and set off of deficit of earlier years against the income of the current year and subsequent years to the Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place to uphold the decision of CIT(A) on merits? [F] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of disallowance in respect of unpaid leave encashment to the Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place to uphold the decision of CIT(A) on merits?” 2. Learned Advocate for the respondent Mr. B.S. Soparkar has pointed out that so far as this Court is concerned, the issues / questions raised in the present Appeals are concluded against the Department, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of [F] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of disallowance in respect of unpaid leave encashment to the Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place to uphold the decision of CIT(A) on merits?” 2. Learned Advocate for the respondent Mr. B.S. Soparkar has pointed out that so far as this Court is concerned, the issues / questions raised in the present Appeals are concluded against the Department, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat Industrial DevelopmentCorporationinTaxAppeal No.380/2017 and allied Appeals, in the case of the very assessee, but with respect to the earlier assessment years. 3. In that view of the matter, the present Appeals stand DISMISSED, as so far as this Court is concerned as the issues are concluded against the Department. DISMISSED, as so far as this Court is concerned as the issues are concluded against the Department. Sd/-(M.R. SHAH, J) CAROLINE Sd/-(A.Y. KOGJE, J)