The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 v. Liva Healthcare Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 807 of 2018 ====================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1VersusLIVA HEALTHCARE PVT LTD ====================================== Appearance: MR MANISH BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE for MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 16/07/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”)dated 22/08/2017 in ITA No.2204/Ahd/2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law; “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.70 lacs u/s 37(1) of the Act relating to Physicians Free Samples?” We have heard Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. Considering the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears and it is not in dispute that while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order in the case of the very assessee but with respect to the earlier Assessment Year. It is reported that the Appeal against the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of the very assessee but with respect to the earlier Assessment Year, being Tax Appeal No.478/2016, has been dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 21/06/2016. Under the circumstances, so far as this Court is concerned, the issue is concluded against the revenue. 3.Under the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in view of the above concluded question in the case of the very assessee but with respect to the earlier Assessment Year. Under the circumstances, present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) siji