TAXAP/3/2000 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 3 of 2000 With TAX APPEAL No. 241 of 2000 With TAX APPEAL No. 247 of 2001 To TAX APPEAL No. 249 of 2001 With TAX APPEAL No. 65 of 2002 To TAX APPEAL No. 69 of 2002 With TAX APPEAL No. 82 of 2002 To TAX APPEAL No. 84 of 2002 With TAX APPEAL No. 135 of 2002 With TAX APPEAL No. 229 of 2003 With TAX APPEAL No. 148 of 2005 With TAX APPEAL No. 1233 of 2005 To TAX APPEAL No. 1234 of 2005 With TAX APPEAL No. 1739 of 2005 To TAX APPEAL No. 1740 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA ====================================== ASSTT. C.I.T. - Appellant(s) Versus EMTICI ENGG. LTD. - Opponent(s) ====================================== TAXAP/3/2000 2/4 JUDGMENT Appearance : MR HM PARMAR for KM PARIKH for Appellant(s) : 1, MR BB NAIK for Appellant(s) MR MR BHATT for Appellant(s) MR RK PATEL for Opponent(s) : 1, ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A. PUJ and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA Date : 18/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ) These are all Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue in the case of M/s. Emtici Engg. Ltd. for different Assessment Years either under income-tax, wealth-tax or under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). More or less common question of law is proposed for consideration and determination of this court. 2. The core issue is as to whether the assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested. 3. Heard Mr. H.M. Parmar, learned advocate for Mr. K.M. Parikh, learned Standing Counsel, Mr. B.B. Naik and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. TAXAP/3/2000 3/4 JUDGMENT 4. Similar question has come up for consideration before this court in Income Tax reference No. 57/98 filed by the Revenue. The question raised in the said Reference is as under : “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee should be treated as a public Limited Company?” 5. The said question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this court dated 20.6.2008. This court has held that the assessee company stands covered within the definition of Sec. 2(18) of the Act. The court was therefore of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee company is a company in which the public are substantially interested. The court, therefore, answered the question in the affirmative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. Since all the above-referred appeals have been admitted by this court and they were awaiting the decision of this court in the main Reference, i.e., ITR No. 57/98, and that the reference has also been decided by this court in favour of the assessee, all the above Tax Appeals are also required to be decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 7. Accordingly, following the above decision of this court, we decide the question posed for our consideration in all these Tax Appeals, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 8. All these Appeals are accordingly dismissed. TAXAP/3/2000 4/4 JUDGMENT Office is directed to place a copy of this order in each of the Tax Appeals. (K.A. Puj, J.) (R.H. Shukla, J.) (hn)