Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Circle - 12 vs. M/s Mahendra Sponge and Power Ltd.

PDF · subscribers
TAXC/8/2016HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01011407201518 February 2016Author: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was bound by the decision of a coordinate bench in CIT v. Godavari Power and Ispat Ltd. (Tax Case No. 31 of 2012, 34 of 2012 and Tax Case No. 32 of 2012 dated 2.8.2013). As the present appeal was before a coordinate bench, 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 cited 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 2.8.2013. The specific findings on the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA and the rate for sold power are not elaborated upon, as the decision rests on precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the earlier order.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Raipur (Revenue) against the order dated 19.6.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The dispute concerns the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA read with Section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to power generated by the respondent, M/s. Mahendra Sponge & Power Ltd., which was partly consumed and partly sold. The rate applicable to the sold power is also in question. The Revenue is the appellant, and M/s. Mahendra Sponge & Power Ltd. is the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA read with Section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning power generated by the respondent, partly consumed and partly sold, and the rate applicable to the sold power, is justified? The Revenue contends that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA read with Section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is appropriate. The Revenue does not appear to have made any specific arguments beyond this general contention, as the judgment focuses on the precedent. The Respondent has not presented any arguments as recorded in the judgment.

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. 8 of 2016 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 1(2) Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus M/s. Mahendra Sponge & Power Ltd. Plot No. 76 and 77, Phase II Siltara Industrial Estate Area, Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J. Judgment on Board Per Navin Sinha, Chief Justice 19/02/2016

1.

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.6.2015 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITA No. 159/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 2.8.2013 in the case of CIT v. Godavari Power and 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 2.8.2013. (Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE Anu

More judgments on Section 80IA

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →