2015 (6) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... substantial questions of law; (A) Whether the ITAT is justified in law as well as on facts in coming to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54EC of Rs. 1 Crore instead of Rs. 5 lakhs ignoring the amendment in Section 54EC by Finance Act (2) of 2014, which is clarificatory in nature? (B) Whether the ITAT is justified in law as well as on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of Rs. 81,48,754/- from long term capital gain and Rs. 18,51,246/- from short term capital gain and tax the balance long term capital gain of Rs. 23,97,146/- and short term capital gain of Rs. 5,44,587/-? (C) Whether the ITAT is justified in law as well as on facts in directing the Assessing Officer ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erm capital gain and tax the balance long term capital gain of Rs. 23,97,146/- and short term capital gain of Rs. 5,44,587/- is concerned, from the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal it appears that while considering the aforesaid issue the learned Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Himalaya Machinery (P) Ltd reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann 380 (Guj.) and another decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Polestar Industries reported in (2013) Taxmann 423 (Guj.). The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue is not in a position to show any contrary decision to the aforesaid decisions. He is also not in a position to dispute that the aforesaid qu....