Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd.....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/227/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 227 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 411 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)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus SHREE DIGVIJAY CEMENT CO. LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR PRANAV G DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 14/11/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant-Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.06.2005 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, in ITA No. 157/Rjt/2003 for AY 1992-93. 2. While admitting these appeals on 07.11.2006, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made under section 43B in respect of interest on proforma credit under Central Excise Rules? 3. The facts of the present case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed depreciation claimed on two units called for disallowance on the basis that production were suspended in these units. Against the said order of assessment, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) which was allowed, against which, the Revenue has preferred an appeal before ITAT which came to be dismissed and the order of CIT(A) was upheld. Against the said order of ITAT, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. An identical issue also came up for consideration before this Court in Tax Appeal No. 1093/2005, where this Court has observed as under: “3. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out facts and respective contentions in detail. Today, by a judgment of even date, the reference on this issue has been answered by this Court against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Hence, for the self-same reasons, the question in the present tax appeal stands answered accordingly in favour of the assessee and the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 5. In that view of the matter, no elaborate reasons are required and we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The present Tax Appeals are dismissed accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) divya (K.J.THAKER, J)