Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mardia Copper Industries....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/743/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 743 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 744 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....Appellant(s)Versus MARDIA COPPER INDUSTRIES....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1MR. HARDIK V VORA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 10/12/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER) 1.By way of these appeals, the appellant-Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.9.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘A’ in ITA no. 5105/Ahd/1996, for AY 1992-93 and ITA No. 703/Ahd/1997 for AY 1993-94. 2.While admitting these appeals, This Court has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer not to exclude any amount on account of job work receipts while computing the profit eligible for deduction u/s. 80I, without it being ascertained as to whether the said receipts were connected with the activities of the Industrial Undertaking ?” 3.Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. Mr. Patel learned advocate states that the amount involved in the present case is small O/TAXAP/743/2006 JUDGMENT one and there is low revenue effect, and therefore, in view of the provisions of section 268(A) and Circular No. 2/2005, 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. Both these appeals are dismissed accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) mandora (K.J.THAKER, J)