M/S ARISUDANA SPINNING MILLS vs. C I T
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for determination, as the matter was no longer res integra. The Court referred to its own prior decisions in ITA Nos. 278 and 279 of 2007, also filed by M/s Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd., which dealt with similar questions of law and were decided on 31.7.2007. The Court found that the ITAT had rightly allowed the revenue's appeal by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods, (1999) 237 ITR 579, which was considered fully applicable. Therefore, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the ITAT's view. The appeal was dismissed as wholly without merit. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 31.10.2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Branch 'A'. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1997-98. The dispute concerns the eligibility of the appellant for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of profits and gains from trading activities, even though the appellant was held to be an industrial undertaking. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT had passed an order allowing the appeal filed by the revenue, thereby denying the deduction to the assessee. The present appeal challenges this ITAT order.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA for trading activities, despite being an industrial undertaking and without specific denial for that activity? 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in denying the claims for trading activities, which were an integral part of the industrial unit and essential for its survival? 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in denying the claims by relying on M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. (ITA No. 140 of 2005), which the appellant argued was distinguishable on facts? 4. Whether the ITAT's findings were perverse and against the evidence, making them unsustainable in law? 5. Whether the ITAT misdirected itself by being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria regarding eligibility for Section 80-IA deduction? Assessee's contentions: The appellant argued that the trading activities were an integral part of the industrial undertaking and essential for its survival, and that the ITAT's reliance on M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. was misplaced due to factual distinctions. The assessee also contended that the ITAT's findings were perverse. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions but notes that the ITAT had allowed the appeal filed by the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 8.10.2007 M/s Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. …Appellant Versus C.I.T., Ludhiana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the appellant-assessee. M.M. KUMAR, J. This is assessee’s appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), against order dated 31.10.2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Branch ‘A’, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal), in I.T.A. No. 473/Chandi/2000, in respect of assessment year 1997-98. It is claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:- A. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law to hold that appellant was not entitled to the deduction u/s 80- IA in respect of profits and gains from the business of trading activities though holding the appellant as an industrial undertaking and there being no specific denial of the impugned deduction on the said activity? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in denying the claims of the appellant company in view of the fact that the income of the appellant from the trading activities is not from any separate unit but it is a part of the activities of the industrial unit. This manufacturing and trading activity is essential part of the industrial undertaking in the absence of which the industrial undertaking cannot survive? C. Whether the ITAt was justified in denying the claims of the appellant company by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. (ITA No. 140 of 2005, decided on 17.8.2006) and various judgments referred therein which are distinguishable on facts? D. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of ITAT are perverse and against the evidence on record, thus, unsustainable in law? E. Whether the ITAT has mi irected itself in being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue of eligibility for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
After hearing learned counsel for the assessee-appellant and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that no question of law, much less a substantive question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise, inasmuch as, the matter is no longer res integra. We have already rejected appeals bearing I.T.A. Nos. 278 and 279 of 2007 in the case of M/s Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CIT, decided on 31.7.2007, wherein similar questions of law were raised. The Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the revenue by following the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods, (1999) 237 ITR 579, which is fully applicable to the instant appeal. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. In view of the above, this appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) October 8, 2007 JUDGE Pkapoor 3
More judgments on Section 80-IA
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- DCIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Chennai vs Eco Protection Engineers Private Limited…ITA 597/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited, Kolkata vs DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), KolkataITTPA 12/KOL/2026[2022-2023]Status: Heard11 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- State Bank of India, Mumbai vs ACIT-Circle- 2(2)(1), MumbaiITA 3429/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026