The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-1 v. Gujarar Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd

C/CA/2489/2020 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2489 of 2020In R/TAX APPEAL NO. 381 of 2020With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 381 of 2020 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VADODARA-1 Versus GUJARAR ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. ========================================================== Appearance:MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Applicant(s) No. 1UCHIT N SHETH(7336) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 08/12/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION :- This is an application at the instance of the revenue seekingcondonation of delay of 3 days in filing the Tax Appeal. According to Mr.Varun Patel, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for therevenue, there is no delay. We do not propose to go into this issue asotherwise also the Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed. We proceedon the footing that, there is a delay of 3 days and the same standscondoned for the sufficient cause assigned in the application. Civil TheApplication stands disposed of accordingly. ORDER IN TAX APPEAL 1. This tax appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act, 1961 for short) is at the instance of the revenue and is(Act, 1961 for short) is at the instance of the revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal dated 05.09.2019 in the ITA No.652/Ahd/2013 for theA.Y. 2009-10. 2. The revenue has proposed the following question of law for theconsideration of this Court : consideration of this Court : “(a) whether on the facts and in circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erredin law and on facts in upholding the order of the CIT(A)in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officeron account of capital grant being @ 15 % of total grantof Rs.25,000 Lacs? 3. We have heard Mr. Varun K. Patel, the learned Sr. StandingCounsel appearing for the revenue and Mr. Uchit Sheth, thelearned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee oncaveat. Counsel appearing for the revenue and Mr. Uchit Sheth, thelearned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee oncaveat. 4. The question of law as proposed by the revenue in the presentappeal is the very same question of law as was proposed in thecase of the very same assessee in the Tax Appeal No.186 of2020. The Tax Appeal No.186 of 2020 for the assessment year2007-08 came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated11.09.2020.appeal is the very same question of law as was proposed in thecase of the very same assessee in the Tax Appeal No.186 of2020. The Tax Appeal No.186 of 2020 for the assessment year2007-08 came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated11.09.2020. 5. In view of the above, this appeal should also fail and hereby fails. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) A. B. VAGHELA/SUCHIT (ILESH J. VORA,J)