Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 718 (GUJ)

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Veer Gems

2015-07-21

A.J.DESAI, ABDULLAH GULAMAHMED URAIZEE

body2015
JUDGMENT A.J. Desai, J. 1. While admitting Tax Appeal on 19.09.2007, following substantial questions of law were framed. "(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the exchange rate difference to exports made in earlier years was 'profit of business' within the meaning of Section 80HHC of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that profit on cancellation of forward marketing contract is to be treated as export turnover within the meaning of Section 80HHC of the Act?" 2. Heard Mr. Sudhir M. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the opponent. 3. The substantial question of law framed in the present appeal for our consideration came to be considered by the different High Courts as well as by this Court on 23.8.2011 in Tax Appeal No. 251 of 2010 in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. Friends and Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and on 19.03.2014 in Tax Appeal No. 658 of 2009 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Mitsu Limited. By a bipartite hearing on 23.8.2011, Revenues appeal was dismissed. The Court followed the decisions of CIT v. Badridas Gauridu (P) Ltd. reported in 261 ITR 256 and of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Soorajmull Nagarmull reported in 129 ITR 169 (Cal.). The said decision was also followed in the order dated 28.3.2013 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. passed in Tax Appeal No. 131 of 2013. Thus, the question for our consideration in this appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 4. The said decision was also followed in the order dated 28.3.2013 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. passed in Tax Appeal No. 131 of 2013. Thus, the question for our consideration in this appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 4. As far as question No. 2 is concerned, the same is covered by a decision in case of Commissioner of Income Tax - III V. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. reported in (2013) 33 taxman.com 10 (Guj.) and the oral order dated 19.03.2014 in Tax Appeal No. 658 of 2009 in the case of issioner of Income Tax V. Mitsu Limited, by which both the questions have been dealt by the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the Learned Tribunal had not committed any error of law and therefore, the order is not required to be interfered with. 5. In the aforesaid premises, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.