Principal Commissoner Of Income Tax 1 v. Astral Poly Technik Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 924 of 2018 ====================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX 1VersusASTRAL POLY TECHNIK LTD ====================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1======================================CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 24/07/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0]Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 10/01/2018 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad “B” Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in ITA No.3136/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law; “Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and facts in deleting the addition in respect of deduction u/s 80IC of Rs.5.31 Crore without appreciating the facts that the provisions of Section 80IC(7) r.w.s. 80IA(8) of the Act were rightly invoked by the AO while estimating the profits derived from brand value and marketing activity?” [2.0]We have heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the dispute is with respect to the deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. From the impugned order, it appears and it is not in dispute that while passing the impugned order the learned Tribunal has relied upon its own decision in the case of the very assessee but in respect of earlier Assessment Year and with respect to similar deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. It is reported that the decision of the learned Tribunal in the case of the very assessee and in respect of the earlier Assessment Year has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No.481/2017. The aforesaid is not disputed by Mrs Mauna Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. Under the circumstances, the question raised in the present Tax Appeal is concluded against the revenue in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the very assessee in Tax Appeal No.481/2017. Under the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. Hence, present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) siji