Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10, v. M/S. E. a. Infrastructire Operations, O.Ltd.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2014ITXA/1493/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the income tax appeal for lacking a substantial question of law. It clarified that the Tribunal only directed reexamination of a certificate for Section 80IA benefits and did not direct allowance of the deduction. The Revenue was ordered to complete the exercise within two months.

What did the court decide?

The Assessing Officer is directed to complete the exercise directed by the Revenue within two months from the receipt of this order.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10, Vs M/S. E. a. Infrastructire… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

itxa1493-12.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1493 OF 2012 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1494 OF 2012

¶5

The Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Vs.

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

M/s. E.A. Infrastructure Operations … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant.

¶9

Ms. Aarti Sathe a/w. Mr. Kalpesh Turalkar, for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND S.C. GUPTE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 03 DECEMBER 2014

¶12

PC :

¶13

. Having heard Mr. Tejveer Singh, appearing for the Revenue in support of this appeal, which challenges the order dated 28 September 2011 passed in two Income Tax Appeals on the file of the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, we do not find any substantial question of law, which can be said to be arising from the direction of the Tribunal. That direction issued in para 6.1 is to reexamine the record and find out whether a certificate filed by the assessee enables the assessee to claim the benefit of Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We have also found out repeatedly that such orders and directions of the Tribunal are assailed in further appeal before us. The appeal cannot be entertained unless it raises a substantial question of law. The question

¶14

Pg 1 of 2

¶15

itxa1493-12.doc

¶16

framed at page 5 of the paper-book is not a question of law. In fact, its wording is misleading. The Tribunal has not directed the A.O. to allow the deduction. In such circumstances, we would caution the Revenue that, hereafter, if such appeals are filed and the questions are worded in the manner noted by us, we would be constrained to dismiss the appeal without any adjudication. At least the Revenue should not make any attempt to mislead the Court. Let the Assessing Officer complete the exercise directed by the Revenue within a period of two months from the receipt of the copy of this order.

¶17

(S.C.GUPTE, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶18

Pg 2 of 2

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10, v. M/S. E. a. Infrastructire Operations, O.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10, v. M/S. E. a. Infrastructire Operations, O.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suri Devices India Vs Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo (Import) and Anr.

M/S. S.T. Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs and Anr.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Vs M/S. Kec Holdings Ltd.,(Erstwhile Bespoke Finvest Ltd. at Present Known as Instant Holding Ltd.)

The Commissioner of Income TAX-5, Mumbai Vs M/S the Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., Mumbai.

Commissioner of Income Tax - 10, Vs M/S. Jai Jinendra Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 8 Vs M/S. Bodhesh Trade Invest Pvt. Ltd.