The Director Of Income Tax-International Taxation v. Mr.brian Stanislaus Fernandez

pvr 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INOCME TAX APPEAL NO. 1689 OF 2011 The Director of Income Tax-International Taxation ..Appellant -Versus- Mr.Brian Stanislaus Fernandez C/o. Yolande Dias ........... ..Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar, for Appellant. Mr.Mandar Vaidya, for Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &G. S. KULKARNI, JJ. PC:- DATE :- 21[st] APRIL, 2014 --- 1.Heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.Mandar Vaidya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee – Respondent. 2.We have perused the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and which is impugned in this appeal. By the order delivered on 9.9.2010 for the Assessment year 2006-2007 in ITA no.3303/M/2009, the Tribunal has essentially followed its decision in the case of “Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manjula J.Shah” reported in 126 TTJ 145, which was delivered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal. The two questions of law framed by the Revenue at paragraph 4 cannot be termed as such for the simple reason that in so far as the first question regarding computation of capital pvr gain on the property acquired by way of gift or inheritance, the view taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Manjula J.Shah's case (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manjula J.Shah) which is reported in “(2013) 355 ITR 474 (Bom)”. 3.In such circumstances that question cannot be termed as substantial question of law. 4.In so far as second question and which is regarding Section 234B of the Income Tax Act,1961 is concerned, the view taken in “Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Vs. NGC Network Asia LLC” and reported in “2009(313) ITR 187” by the Division Bench of this Court is pressed into service. It is conceded that the second question is also concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by this Judgment. 5.In both the matters, the Revenue has accepted the view taken by this Court. Neither of the decisions have been overruled or reversed. In such circumstances, this appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)