THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. T.C.USHA,CHAITANYA CASHEW CORPORATION
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court agreed with the Revenue's submission that the Tribunal's reliance on a previous order was misplaced due to dissimilar facts, specifically concerning a leased unit versus a self-owned unit. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal. The Court noted that neither the First Appellate Authority nor the Tribunal had adequately considered the specific category under Section 80IA to which the appellant's industry would fall. Given the need for a more thorough factual determination concerning the categorization of the industry under the various clauses of Section 80IA, the High Court remanded the issue back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The appeals were allowed without any observation on the merits of the issue or answering the questions of law.
What were the facts?
The appeals concern assessment years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, relating to a claim under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, T.C. Usha (Chaitanya Cashew Corporation), established a unit in Andhra Pradesh. The First Appellate Authority disallowed the claim, citing that the unit commenced manufacture after April 1, 1993, and Andhra Pradesh was not an industrially backward State specified in the 8th Schedule. It was also noted that the assessee's accounts were not separately maintained for the industrial undertaking, and the profit computation did not account for administrative expenses. The Tribunal set aside this order, relying on a previous decision. The Revenue appealed this decision to the High Court, arguing the facts of the relied-upon case were different.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should set aside the Tribunal's order allowing the Section 80IA claim, given that the Tribunal relied on a case with dissimilar facts regarding leased units versus self-owned units (mixed law and fact, concerning Section 80IA). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Tribunal's order, which was confirmed by the High Court in a previous instance, was based on a case involving processing in a leased unit, not a self-owned unit as in the present case. Therefore, there was no identity of facts or law, and the Tribunal's order should be set aside.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT K. Vinod Chandran, J. The assessment years we are concerned with in the appeals are 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The claim is under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity, the Act] as it existed prior to 2000. The First Appellate Authority confirmed the dis- allowance under Section 80IA of the Act with respect to the unit established in Andhra Pradesh. The reasons for the same are seen in the order under paragraph 6 numbered as (i) to (iii). It is an admitted fact that the unit had commenced manufacture after 01.04.1993. The First Appellate Authority found that with respect to an industrial undertaking located in an industrially backward State, deduction can be claimed only if it begins to manufacture or produce articles at any time during the period between 01.04.1993 and 31.03.1998. In the case of the respondent, the unit was in Andhra Pradesh, which was not one of the industrially backward States as specified in the 8th schedule. It was also found that under sub-Section (2) of Section 80IA of the Act, a deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking shall not be admissible, unless the accounts of the industrial undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year have been audited by an Accountant as defined under Explanation to Section 80IA(2) of the Act, as it existed prior to 2000. The assessee also has to furnish along with the return of income the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified. The assessee's accounts though were audited under Section 45AB, there is no separate accounts maintained for the industrial undertaking for which the allowance was claimed. Thirdly, it was found that the profit as computed by the appellant does not take into account administrative and other expenses. The assessee was then directed to approach the Assessing Officer, who was directed to consider the claim if the reasons indicated under (i) and (ii) above were not applicable in the assessee's case.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority relying on an order in another case. The learned Senior Counsel, Government of India [Taxes] would contend that the said order of the Tribunal, which was confirmed by this Court, was with respect to the processing carried out by an assessee in a unit, which did not belong to the assessee, but was leased out by the assessee. There was no identity of facts or law in the instant case, with the relied on decision, is the contention taken. We agree with the said submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue. In such circumstances, the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside.
In the context we notice Section 80IA as was available in the Income Tax Act at that point of time. Various types of industries were referred to therein, under the various clauses, the commencement of which were specified between different periods. There is no consideration by the First Appellate Authority or the Tribunal as to under which category the appellant's industry would fall. If, as the First Appellate Authority found, the claim is only on the basis of an industrial undertaking existing in a industrially backward State, then on the finding of the First Appellate Authority, there is no question of a remand. We notice that the issue has not been considered with reference to the facts and the law as seen from Section 80IA of the Act, as it existed during the relevant assessment years.
In such circumstances, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the issue to the Tribunal to consider the claim under Section 80IA of the Act with reference to the categorisation of the appellant's industry; as is discernible from the various clauses.
The appeals are allowed without any observation on the merits of the issue and without answering the questions of law, since a more thorough and comprehensive determination on facts is necessary. No order as to costs. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE ASHOK MENON, JUDGE 27/10/18 //// P.A. To Judge
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 80IA
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Klsr Infratech Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), HyderabadITA 2323/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
