Case LawHigh Court › Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 v...

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 v. Winners Business Link Pvt Ltd

High Court 19 Mar 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 v. Winners Business Link Pvt Ltd
Date of order
19 Mar 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 v. Winners Business Link Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 9[th] August 2017 raising the following questions for our consideration :- [A]“Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.

Decision: Tax Appeal is dismissed. {Akil Kureshi, J.} Prakash {B.N Karia, J.}

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL No. 178 of 2018 ============================================================= PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4VersusWINNERS BUSINESS LINK PVT LTD ============================================================= Appearance :Mr M.R BHATT, Sr Advocate with Mrs MAUNA M BHATT, Advocate for the PETITIONER============================================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA19[th] March 2018andHONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA19[th] March 2018 ORAL ORDER(PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 9[th] August 2017 raising the following questions for our consideration :- [A]“Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,65,16,100/= made by the Assessing Officer after rejecting the assessee’s method of accounting ?” [B]“Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding the decision of CIT [A] in restricting the disallowance to 5% instead of 10% made by the Assessing Officer under Sectio 37 [1] of the Act ?” Regarding Question No. 1, counsel for the Revenue pointed out that by an elaborate order passed in Tax Appeal No. 333 of 2017 dated 6[th] June 2017, this Court has turned down the question under similar circumstances. Without recording separate reasons, therefore, this question is not considered. Regarding 2[nd] question, we notice that the same is based entirely on appreciation of facts on record. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. {Akil Kureshi, J.} Prakash {B.N Karia, J.}
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan