PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S HEALTH BIOTECH LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Revenue's counsel had fairly accepted that the issue was squarely covered against the Revenue by the Apex Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aarham Softronics. The Apex Court, in its judgment, had clarified the definition of 'initial assessment year' under Section 80-IC of the Act, distinguishing it from Section 80-IB. It held that an undertaking or enterprise setting up a new unit between 7th January 2003 and 1st April 2012 in Himachal Pradesh would be entitled to 100% deduction for five assessment years, followed by 25% (or 30% for companies) for the next five years. The judgment further elaborated on how substantial expansion within the 10-year period could reset the 'initial assessment year' for further 100% deductions. Based on this concession and the Apex Court's ruling, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, for the assessment year 2012-2013. The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh, against M/s Health Biotech Ltd. The counsel for the Revenue conceded that the issue in this case was covered by a judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aarham Softronics.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aarham Softronics, Civil Appeal No.1784 of 2019 decided on 20.02.2019, squarely covers the issue in this appeal. The Revenue argued that the issue is covered by the aforementioned judgment. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
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 : 09.07.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh ...... Appellant versus M/s Health Biotech Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present : Mr. Vivek Sethi, Senior Panel Counsel for the appellant.
*** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No.378/Chd/2017 dated 12.02.2018 for the assessment year 2012-2013. 2. as under :- “24. The aforesaid discussion leads us to the following conclusions: (a) Judgment dated 20th August, 2018 in Classic Binding POOJA SHARMA 2019.07.16 17:05 I am the author of this document Industries case omitted to take note of the definition ‘initial assessment year’ contained in Section 80-IC itself and instead based its conclusion on the definition contained in Section 80-IB, which does apply in these cases. The definitions of ‘initial assessment year’ in the two sections, viz. Sections 80-IB and 80-IC are materially different. The definition of ‘initial assessment year’ under Section 80-IC has made all the difference. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment does not lay down the correct law. (b) An undertaking or an enterprise which had set up a new unit between 7th January, 2003 and 1st April, 2012 in State of Himachal Pradesh of the nature mentioned in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC, would be entitled to deduction at the rate of 100% of the profits and gains for five assessment years commencing with the ‘initial assessment year’. For the next five years, the admissible deduction would be 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company) of the profits and gains. (c) However, in case substantial expansion is carried out as defined in clause (ix) of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IC by such an undertaking or enterprise, within the aforesaid period of 10 years, the said previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken would become ‘initial assessment year’, and from that assessment year the assessee shall be entitled to 100% deductions of the profits and gains. (d) Such deduction, however, would be for a total period of 10 years, as provided in sub-section (6). For example, if the expansion is carried out immediately, on the completion of first five years, the assessee would be entitled to 100% deduction again for the next five years. On the other hand, if substantial expansion is undertaken, say, in 8th year by an assessee such an assessee would be entitled to 100% POOJA SHARMA 2019.07.16 17:05 I am the author of this document deduction for the first five years, deduction @ 25% of the profits and gains for the next two years and @ 100% again from 8th year as this year becomes ‘initial assessment year’ once again. However, this 100% deduction would be for remaining three years, i.e., 8th, 9th and 10th assessment years.” In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE July 09, 2019 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2019.07.16 17:05 I am the author of this document
More judgments on Section 80-IC
- Gmp Technical Solutions Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiITA 6155/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Lsj Biotech Private Limited, Igc, Aidc… vs Incometax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan…ITA 465/GTY/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- ACIT, Rajkot vs Crystal Global Industries, RajkotITA 538/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
- ACIT, Rajkot vs Crystal Global Industries, RajkotITA 537/RJT/2025[2013]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026
- Crystal Global Industries, Rajkot vs ACIT, Circle-2(1), RajkotITA 508/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2011-12
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026