R.K.AGRAWAL,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Tax Appeal Nos. 6 and 14 of 2004 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue while upholding the decision of the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') dated 27.06.2003.
(3.) Brief facts:- (a) On 10.09.1998, the Respondent, who is the Chairman and Managing Director of Procter and Gamble (P &G), India, filed his income tax return for the Assessment Year 199899 and declaring the total income at Rs. 40,13,820/-. (b) The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 12.02.2001, concluded the assessment proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the IT Act') and determined the total income of the Respondent at Rs. 7,23,11,013/- against the declared income. (c) Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) being No. CAB/I-643/2000-2001. After considering the case, learned CIT (Appeals), vide order dated 28.03.2002, dismissed the appeal of the Respondent after comprehensively discussing the taxability of the alleged amount and upholding the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer. (d) Being dissatisfied, the Respondent carried the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 27.06.2003, in ITA No. 2241/Ahd/2002 partly allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent. (e) At this juncture, the Respondent as well as the Revenue both preferred cross appeals before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. (f) At the same time, consequent to the decision of the Tribunal dated 27.06.2003, the Assessing Officer started the proceeding side by side to give effect to the order dated 27.06.2003. Vide order dated 15.09.2003, the Assessing Officer held that the difference being sum of Rs. 6,80,40,649/- paid to the Respondent by P &G, USA shall be treated as capital gains on transfer/redemption of shares, and hence, the Respondent is liable to pay tax on capital gains. Being aggrieved with the order dated 15.09.2003, the Respondent filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) being No. CAB/V-37/04-05 which was upheld by learned CIT (Appeals) in favour of Assessing Officer while dismissing the appeal of the Respondent. (g) Being dissatisfied, the Respondent further preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 24.09.2010, dismissed the appeal. The decision of the Tribunal dated 24.09.2010 was challenged further. (h) The Division Bench of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2004, allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. (i) Hence, the present appeals have been filed by the Revenue before this Court.;