High CourtsDivision Bench(2002) 09 GUJ CK 0005

Patira Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 23 September 2002 · Citation: (2004) 267 ITR 621

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.A. Mehta, J · Anil R. Dave, J
CASE NUMBER
Tax Appeal No. 269 of 2002

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 · 338 words

D.A. Mehta, J.—The appellant has proposed the following substantial questions of law stated to arise out of the Tribunal''s order dated March 8, 2002.

(i) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in interpreting the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act; 1961, for arriving at a conclusion that "depreciation" falls within the scope of "Chapter XIV-B" and hence, as a consequence, the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 34,99,613 be treated as a part and parcel of "undisclosed income" while confirming assessment u/s 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in giving its ultimate finding for disallowance of depreciation in block assessment or the same is vitiated in the eyes of law it being contrary to the settled position of law since several relevant factors on record clinching the issue have been ignored by the Tribunal ?

(iii) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 4,68,824 u/s 158BC by considering it as undisclosed income for the assessment year 1995-96 even though the date of filing the return of income has not expired when search took place and no return was yet filed by the assessee ?

(iv) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the depreciation u/s 158BC which is found to be excess can be considered as "undisclosed income" even though after excluding such depreciation, there remains "unabsorbed depreciation" for that year ?

2.

We have heard Mr. R.K. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant. The dispute pertains to allowance of depreciation for the block period as stated in the impugned order. The Tribunal has arrived at findings of fact after appreciating the evidence on record, including material seized during the course of search and seizure proceedings, and on going through the aforesaid order of the Tribunal it is apparent that no substantial question of law, much less any question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.