Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Gopaldas Nema
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the learned Tribunal had rightly allowed the deduction to the assessee up to the permissible limit as provided under the law. The court referred to the proviso to Section 54-EC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which came into force with effect from April 1, 2007. This proviso states that if an assessee invests in a long-term specified asset on or after April 1, 2007, during any financial year, and the investment does not exceed fifty lakh rupees, then the assessee is entitled to a deduction up to fifty lakh rupees. The court also cited decisions from the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. C. Jaichander and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Coromandel Industries Limited, which considered similar questions. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising in the appeal filed by the Revenue.
What were the facts?
This case involves an appeal by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench. The ITAT had set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and allowed the assessee's appeal. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction to all assessees under Section 54-EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court challenges this decision. The dispute centers on the interpretation and application of the proviso inserted into Section 54-EC(1) by the Finance Act of 2007, which became effective from April 1, 2007.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction to the assessee under Section 54-EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of the proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2007. (Question of law) The Revenue's contention, as presented by the learned Senior Counsel, is that the proviso to Section 54-EC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which came into force on April 1, 2007, limits the deduction. The assessee, through their counsel, argued that the proviso, as enacted, allows for a deduction up to fifty lakh rupees if the investment in long-term specified assets does not exceed this amount in any financial year. The Revenue's appeal is based on the premise that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation and application of this proviso.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 54-EC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appeal No.07/2015 06.04.2015
Shri R.L. Jain, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Veena Mandlik, advocate for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
By the impugned order, learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction to all the assessees under Section 54-EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that by Finance Act No.22 of 2007 proviso to Section 54-EC (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was inserted, which came into force with effect from 01.04.2007.
As per the proviso, if investment is made on or after the 1st day of April, 2007 in the long term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees, then he is entitled for deduction up to fifty lakh rupees.
The Madras High Court also considered the aforesaid question in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. C. Jaichander reported in 2014 (11) TMI 54 and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Coromandel Industries Limited reported in 2014 (12) TMI 852.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid and as per the proviso to Section 54-EC (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which came into force with effect from 01.04.2007, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed deduction to the assessee up to the permissible limit, as provided under the law. No substantial question of law is arising in this appeal filed by the revenue.
Income Tax Appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal)
(Alok Verma) Judge
Judge Pithawe RC
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
