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

PDF · subscribers
TAXC/60/2016HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01012217201614 November 2016Author: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY AGRAWAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it could not re-examine the issue as it had been decided by a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction in a previous case, CIT v. Godavari 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 arrive at a different determination. The fact that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) might have been preferred against the earlier order, 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 finding of the ITAT on the deduction under Section 80IA is not detailed, but the High Court's decision is based on precedent from a coordinate bench.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur against an order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, Raipur. The dispute concerns the disallowance of deduction by the Assessing Officer under Section 80IA read with Section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The deduction relates to power generated by the respondent, M/s. Godawari Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd., which was partly consumed by the company and partly sold. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT had passed the impugned order, and this appeal was preferred against it. The revenue was represented by an advocate, while the respondent was not represented.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal 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, which was partly consumed and partly sold? The Appellant (Revenue) contended that the ITAT's decision on the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA was incorrect. The specific grounds for this contention are not detailed in the judgment. The Respondent (Assessee) did not present any arguments as they were not represented before the High Court. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue beyond the general assertion of error in the ITAT's order regarding the deduction under Section 80IA.

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. 60 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. 203/BLPR/2011. 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 →