Itr/150/1995 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Apollo Vikas Steels (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADINCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 150 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Sd/- ============================================== Whether Reporters of Local Papers 1may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 [To be referred to the Reporter or ]not ? 3 [Whether their Lordships wish to see ]the fair copy of the judgment ?Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to 4the 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 - Applicant(s) Versus APOLLO VIKAS STEELS (P) LTD - Respondent(s)================================================= Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1,MR RK PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1, ================================================= ITR/150/1995 CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTAandHONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 22/12/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI) 1The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax. “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on fact in holding that ship breaking was manufacturing activity and therefore the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 32A, 80-HH and 80-I?” 2The Assessment Year is 1985-86 and the corresponding accounting period is 30/6/1984. ITR/150/1995 3/4JUDGMENT 3Heard Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of the applicant-revenue and Mr.B.D.Karia, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 4It is common ground between the parties that the controversy in issue stands concluded in favour of the revenue by a decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation, (2003) 261 ITR 113. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. 5Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present case, the question referred is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 6At this stage, Mr.B.D.Karia, learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee states that the ITR/150/1995 4/4JUDGMENT aforesaid decision of this Court has been challenged before the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court has granted Leave to Appeal. He, therefore, prays for certificate under section 261 of the Income Tax Act,1961. 7In view of the aforesaid statement that the SLP against the aforesaid decision is granted, which statement is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the revenue, we certify that, this is to be a fit case for appeal. 8Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Sd/-Sd/- (D.A.Mehta,J) (H.N.Devani,J) m.m.bhatt