Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. M/s Godawari Power And Ispat Pvt.ltd.

PDF · subscribers
TAXC/63/2016HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01012218201614 November 2016Author: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY AGRAWAL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was bound by the decision of a coordinate bench of the same High Court in the case of CIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. (Tax Case No. 31 of 2012, 34 of 2012 and Tax Case No. 32 of 2012 dated 02.08.2013). The Court stated that sitting in coordinate jurisdiction, there was no occasion to re-examine the matter or arrive at a different determination. The fact that a Special Leave Petition might have been preferred against the prior decision, without any interim order, did not persuade the Court to entertain the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the order dated 02.08.2013. The specific findings of the prior order are not detailed in this judgment, but the ratio is that coordinate benches are bound by each other's decisions.

What were the facts?

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (Appellant) has filed an appeal against the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, Raipur. The appeal concerns the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA read with Section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute pertains to power generated by the assessee, M/s. Godawari Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent), which was partly consumed and partly sold. The rate applicable to the sold portion was the subject of contention. The High Court noted that a coordinate bench had previously decided a similar issue in the case of CIT v. Godavari Power & Ispat Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in allowing deduction under Section 80IA read with Section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning power generated by the assessee, where a portion was sold? The Appellant (Revenue) contended that the deduction should not have been allowed, implying that the conditions for claiming the deduction under Section 80IA were not met, particularly concerning the sale of power. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's arguments beyond this implication. The Respondent (Assessee) argued that the deduction was admissible as per the provisions of Section 80IA, likely asserting that the generation and sale of power met the statutory requirements for the deduction. The judgment does not record specific arguments or precedents cited by the Respondent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA,Section 80IA(4)(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Tax Case (Income Tax Appeal) No. 63 of 2016 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ---- Appellant Versus M/s. Godawari Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 428/1, Phase I, Industrial Growth Centre, Siltara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board Per Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice 15/11/2016

1.

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31.03.2016 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITA No. 63/BLPR/2010. The issue relates to disallowance of deduction by the Assessing Officer under Section 80IA read with Section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1956 concerning power generated by the Respondent partly consumed and partly sold and the rate with regard to the latter.

2.

We find that the issue has been decided by a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction in Tax Case No. 31 of 2012, 34 of 2012 and Tax Case No. 32 of 2012 dated 02.08.2013 in the case of CIT v. Godavari Power & Ispat Ltd.

3.

Sitting in coordinate jurisdiction, there is no occasion for us to re-examine the matter and arrive at any other determination. The fact that a Special Leave Petition may have been preferred against the same and in which there is no interim order, does not persuade us to entertain this appeal. The appeal is disposed in terms of the order dated 02.08.2013. (Deepak Gupta) (Sanjay Agrawal)

CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Amit

More judgments on Section 80IA

All 1,796 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →