C/TAXAP/827/2019 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 827 of 2019 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, SURAT -1 Versus M/S SANIDHYA Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for Appellant(s) No. 1 for Opponent(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 03/02/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the act, 1961') is at instance of Revenue and is directed against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat dated 17.05.2019 in ITA No. 417/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Revenue has proposed following four questions of law for consideration of this Court : (a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is correct in setting aside order u/s 263 of Act even when assessment order passed by A.O. Is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to interest of revenue? Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 07 10:11:04 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/827/2019 ORDER (b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is correct to allow claim of deduction u/s. 80IB of Act without appreciating that A.O. had failed to undertake inquiry and verification during original assessment? (c) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT's order is correct when in fact deduction u/s 80IB(10) of I.T. Act should be based on total income to be computed as per provisions of Sec 29 to 43D of Act, after allowing all eligible deductions whether made or claimed suo-moto by assessee or not? (d) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in applying rule of consistency even when assessee has failed to support its claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10)? 3. questions of law as proposed by Revenue stand squarely covered by decision of this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alidhara Taxspin Engineers & Anr. rendered in Tax Appeal No.265 of 2017 dated 2nd May, 2017. We quote para-4 of said decision; We have heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of revenue. On interpretation of partnership agreement and considering wish of partners reflected in partnership deed, not to pay/charge interest on partners capital and remuneration, learned tribunal has rightly deleted disallowance made by Assessing Officer with respect to deduction claimed under Section 80IB of Income Tax Act. As rightly observed by learned tribunal, mere Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 07 10:11:04 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/827/2019 ORDER incorporation of interest on partners capital and remuneration does not signify that same are mandatory in nature. We concur with view taken by learned tribunal. We see no reason to interfere with impugned judgment and order passed by learned tribunal. No substantial questions of law arise in present Tax Appeal. present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 4. This Court had occasion to consider Alidhara Taxspin Engineers (supra) while deciding batch of appeals being Tax Appeal Nos.165 of 2019 to Tax Appeal Nos. 168 of 2019, decided on 24th June, 2019. 5. Applying dictum as laid in Alidhara Taxspin Engineers (supra), we are in complete agreement with findings recorded by Tribunal in impugned order. In such circumstances, referred to above, in our opinion, none of questions, as proposed, could be termed as substantial questions of law involved in present tax appeal. 6. In result, tax appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) KUMAR ALOK Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 07 10:11:04 IST 2020 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-1 v. Sanidhya