The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Western Agri Seeds Ltd

C/TAXAP/834/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 834 of 2019 ==========================================================THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VersusWESTERN AGRI SEEDS LTD. ==========================================================Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 20/01/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961') is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, 'B' Bench, dated 27[th] March 2019 in the ITA No.2795/Ahd/2014 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2The Revenue has proposed the following questions as the substantial questions of law involved in the present appeal: “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in upholding the order of the CIT(A) for deleting disallowance on account of discount and rate difference to Rs.2,14,47,109/-? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in upholding the order of the CIT(A) for deleting disallowance on account of foreign tour expenses to Rs.21,35,713/-? [C] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in upholding the order of the CIT(A) for deleting disallowances made u/s 40(A)(2) to Rs.86,39,915/-?” 3We take notice of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the CIT(Appeals). All the three questions, as proposed, in our opinion, are questions of fact. Two authorities have recorded concurrent finding of fact in favour of the assessee. None of the three questions, as proposed, could be termed as substantial question of law. 4In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) CHANDRESH (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)