Case LawHigh Court › The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax...

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 v. Atul Limited

High Court 05 Feb 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 v. Atul Limited
Date of order
05 Feb 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 v. Atul Limited, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.

Decision: The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 1375 of 2018 ================================================================ THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1VersusATUL LIMITED ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANIandHONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER Date : 05/02/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1.By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant has called in question the order dated 12.1.2018 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘C’, in ITA No. 2780/Ahd/2002 for the assessment year 1996-97 by proposing the following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law. “[A]Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.34,972/- made under Rule 6D of the Rules? [B]Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.37,461/- made u/s 80M of the Act in respect of incorporate dividends? [C]Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction of Rs.77,471/- made u/s 80IA of the Act by ignoring that sale proceeds of empty containers cannot be stated to be derived from any manufacturing activity?” 2.Heard Mr. M. R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant. 3.On a perusal of the proposed questions, it is evident that the amount involved in this appeal is very small. Under the circumstances, considering the smallness of the amount involved, this court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the controversy, leaving it open for the appellant to raise the same in an appropriate case. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) R.S. MALEK (A. P. THAKER, 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