9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - TAX APPEAL NO. 886 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR BS SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR RAXIT DHOLAKIA, ADVOCATE FOR MR PRANAV G DESAI, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench (hereinafter referred to as ITAT) dated 13.10.2005 in ITA No. 778/Rjt/2003 for the Assessment Year 1995-96, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeal for consideration of the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal and confirmed the action of Assessing Officer in referring the matter to DVO for valuation of business asset. The Tribunal also granted part deduction of addition made on account of alleged unexplained investment in construction cost. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeal for consideration of the aforesaid substantial question of law. 5. Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee has submitted that as such the issue involved in the present Tax Appeal is now not res integra in view of the decision of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 1689 of 2005 rendered on 13.09.2006 whereby this Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raxit Dholakia, learned advocate has appeared on behalf Mr. Pranav Desai, learned advocate appearing for the Department. He is not in a position to dispute the above and is not in a position to show and/or point out any contrary decision. 7. Having heard Mr. Dholakia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Department and Mr. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee and the question posed for consideration by us reproduced hereinabove and considering the decision of this Court in the case of Goodluck Automobiles (P.) Ltd. (Supra) , the question which is raised in the present appeal is required to be answered in favour of the assessee. We are not giving any elaborate reasons for the same as in the case of Good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
