M/S Lakhi Gems v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jaipur
High Court
10 May 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
M/S Lakhi Gems v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jaipur
Date of order
10 May 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S Lakhi Gems v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jaipur, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Issue: He submits that thequestion as to whether appellant had claimed deduction underSection 80HHC before the assessing officer in prescribedformat and did not file Form 10CCAB along with return, has notbeen decided by the Tribunal or if the issue has beenconsidered, it has not been answered.
Decision: The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid. [J.K.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.45/2015
M/s Lakhi Gems
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jaipur
DATE OF ORDER : 10/05/2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA
Mr. Gunjan Pathak, for appellant
The present appeal has been filed to challenge the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short“Tribunal”) dated 22[nd] October, 2014.
Learned counsel submits that substantial questions of laware involved in the present appeal. He submits that thequestion as to whether appellant had claimed deduction underSection 80HHC before the assessing officer in prescribedformat and did not file Form 10CCAB along with return, has notbeen decided by the Tribunal or if the issue has beenconsidered, it has not been answered. The facts given aboveshow that the issue raised by the appellant has not beenaddressed by the Tribunal and if that is so, the appellant shouldhave made an application for rectification instead ofapproaching this court by way of appeal.
The appellant has raised other question of laws on factsbut the appeal cannot be admitted in absence of substantial
question of law. Apart from the above, one issue raised by theappellant about addition having been sustained by ITAT onaccount of unverifiable purchases to the extent of 15% of thepurchases, has already been decided by this court in the case ofD.B. Income Tax Appeal No.43/2015, M/s. G.B. Impex Vs. ITOwhere it is held that no substantial question of law is involved.We do not find that any other question of law is involved. Inview of the above, this appeal is disposed of with the liberty tothe appellant to file an application for rectification before theTribunal on the question regarding Section 80HHC of theIncome Tax Act.
The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid.
[J.K. RANKA],J.
[M.N. BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRACertificate:
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/orderbeing emailed.”
Fateh Raj Bohra, Private Secretary
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.