High CourtsDivision Bench(2017) 02 GUJ CK 0109

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 27 February 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
2252 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 364 words
1.

0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "B" dated 5.6.2009 in ITA No. 3214/AHD/2007 for AY 2001?02, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal to consider the following question of law:

"Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in directing to allow insurance claim received and exchange rate fluctuation for deduction u/s 80HHC of the IT Act?"

2.0. Heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri Monaal J Davawala, learned advocate for Mrs. Swati Soparkar, learned advocate for the assessee. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the question raised in the present appeal is now not res?integra in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nirma Limited reported in 367 ITR 12(Guj) and another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Priyanka Gems reported in 367 ITR 575 (Guj).

3.0. So far as the deduction claimed under Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act with respect to the insurance claim received is concerned, the said question is now already held against the revenue in the case of Nirma Limited (supra). The aforesaid is not disputed by Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned counsel for the revenue. Similarly, the deduction claimed under Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act with respect to exchange rate fluctuation is concerned, the same is also held against the revenue in light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Priyanka Gems (supra). The aforesaid is not disputed by Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned counsel for the revenue.

4.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, more particularly, applying the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nirma Limited (supra) and Priyanka Gems (supra),

the question of law framed in the present appeal is held against the revenue and in favour of assessee. Present appeal stands disposed of accordingly.