We Take Notice Of The Fact That The Appellate Tribunal, While Dismissing The Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Placed Strong Reliance On A Decision Of This Court v. Alidhra Taxspin Engineers And Another Rendered In The Tax Appeal

C/TAXAP/132/2019 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 132 of 2019 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO ==========================================================1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?==========================================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT 1 VersusM/S MUKTA ENTERPRISE ==========================================================Appearance:MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date : 29/07/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) This Tax Appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat dated 26/10/2018 in the ITA No.294/ SRT/2017 for the A.Y.2014-15 . 2.We take notice of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of " Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alidhra Taxspin Engineers and another rendered in the Tax Appeal No.265 of 2017 dated 2nd May 2017. We may quote para-4 of the decision of this Court referred to above thus : “We have heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. On interpretation of the partnership agreement and considering the wish of the partners reflected in the partnership deed, not to pay/charge interest on the partners capital and the remuneration, the learned tribunal has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer with respect to the deduction claimed under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. As rightly observed by the learned tribunal, mere incorporation of interest on the partners’ capital and remuneration does not signify that the same are mandatory in nature. We concur with the view taken by the learned tribunal. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal. No substantial questions of law arise in the present Tax Appeal. The present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ” 10.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court. 11.In our opinion, no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the Appellate Tribunal in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue and thereby affirming the order passed by the CIT(A), Surat Bench at Surat." 3.In the result, this Tax Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) MARY VADAKKAN (A. C. RAO, J)