The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Swati Profiles Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.246 OF 2006IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.755 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Swati Profiles Pvt. Ltd. Mr.Vimal Gupta & P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.S.M.Shah for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : ..Appellant. ..Respondent 1. There is a delay of 198 days. Considering the cause shown delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.755 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Swati Profiles Pvt. Ltd. Mr.Vimal Gupta & P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.S.M.Shah for the Respondent. ..Appellant. ..Respondent CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : 1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions of law. with Section 80(I) of the Income Tax Act. The Judgmentin Pandian Chemicals Ltd. is under Section 80HH of theIncome Tax Act. At the highest the contention of thecounsel for the appellant before the Tribunal could bethat the ratio of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra) bealso made applicable to the cases, covered by Section88(I) of the Act. This judgment therefore, cannot besaid to conclude the issue of law by the Supreme Courtin interpreting Section 80(I).3. In so far as question-3 is concerned, the Tribunalhas clearly recorded a finding that the provisions ofSection 80-I(9) are not attracted. Reliance was placedon the judgment of this court in the case of PenwallIndia Ltd. 196 ITR 813. We have considered theprovisions of Section 80-I(9). We concur with thejudgment of the tribunal that on the facts of this caseSection 80-I(9) would not be attracted.The Tribunal hasdiscussed the same in Para-11 of the order. Considering the material before the A.O. we find no fault in the order of the Tribunal. . Considering the above, in our opinion, this is not afit case for interference in the order passed by theITAT. Considering the fact that the tax incidence is less than Rs.4.00 lakhs and the CBDT circular, the appeal ought not to have been filed. 4. In view of above discussion, appeal is dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)