C I T UDAIPUR vs. M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/103/2008HC RajasthanRJHC01032641200806 July 2009Author: GOVIND MATHUR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals did not involve any substantial question of law. The Tribunal had rightly concluded that the case did not present any debatable issue, justifying the invocation of power under Section 154. Furthermore, the Tribunal's finding that net interest income, rather than gross interest income, should be excluded for the purpose of Section 80HHC was also considered correct by the High Court. Consequently, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the ITAT's decision. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

These four appeals before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur involve cross-appeals between M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (the assessee) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (D.C.I.T.) (the revenue). The appeals arise from a common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which decided two appeals, one by the assessee and one by the revenue, for two different assessment years. The High Court heard all four appeals together for admission on merits. The ITAT had concluded that the case did not involve any debatable issue and that the power under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rightly invoked. Regarding the exclusion of interest income under Section 80HHC, the ITAT found that net interest income should be excluded instead of gross interest.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the present case did not involve any debatable issue and that the power under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rightly invoked? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that net interest income, instead of gross interest income, is to be excluded for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. However, by filing appeals, it is implied they would argue against the findings of the ITAT that would be adverse to them. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue. However, by filing appeals, it is implied they would argue against the findings of the ITAT that would be adverse to them.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- 1. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 181 of 2008 M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. V/S THE D.C.I.T.(ASSESSMENT) UDAIPUR 2. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 103 of 2008 C I T UDAIPUR V/S M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD 3. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 180 of 2008 M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. V/S THE D.C.I.T.(ASSESSMENT) UDAIPUR 4. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 04623 of 2008 C I T UDAIPUR V/S M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD Mr. ANJAY KOTHARI, for the assessee. Mr. KK BISSA, for the Revenue. Date of Order : 6.7.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J.

----- The defect pointed out in Appeal No. 04623/2008 is over-ruled. It may now be registered as regular appeal.

2 In Appeal No. 180 and other two appeals notices are issued which are accepted by the other side. Thereafter all the learned counsel submit that all the appeals may now be heard for admission on merits today itself. Since all the appeals involve common question being cross appeals, they are heard together, and are being decided by this common order.

These four appeals arise out of common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deciding two appeals of the common assessee and the Revenue for two different years. The learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that the present case does not involve any debatable issue, and the power under Section 154 was rightly invoked. So far as the question of exclusion of interest income under Section 80 HHC is concerned, in our view, the Tribunal has rightly found that net interest income is to be excluded instead of gross interest. In our view, these appeals do not involve any substantial question of law. The same are, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →