Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Centre For Research And Industrial Staff Performance Crisp

PDF · subscribers
ITA/79/2014HC Madhya Pradesh15 October 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjay Lal
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the Tribunal passed its order based on the judgments of Coordinate Benches of the High Court, there was no reason for the Court to take a different view. The Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court should generally follow the precedents set by its own Coordinate Benches, especially when the Tribunal's decision is predicated on such precedents, unless there are compelling reasons to deviate. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal, has filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, dated 31.10.2013. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2009-10. The core of the dispute involves questions related to depreciation. The Tribunal had allowed the exemption, relying on judgments from a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raipur Pallottine Society [(1989) 180 ITR 579 (MP)] and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujrati Samaj [(2012) 349 ITR 559]. The Revenue contends that a subsequent judgment of the Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2012) 76 DTR (Ker) 377] renders the Tribunal's order unsustainable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing exemption concerning depreciation, by relying on judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court, when a contrary view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2012) 76 DTR (Ker) 377]? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The Tribunal's order was based on the judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court, namely Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raipur Pallottine Society [(1989) 180 ITR 579 (MP)] and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujrati Samaj [(2012) 349 ITR 559]. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argues that the Tribunal's order is unsustainable in light of the Kerala High Court's decision in Lissie Medical Institutions Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2012) 76 DTR (Ker) 377].

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.A.No.79/2014 Commissioner of Income Centre for Research and Tax, Bhopal Industrial Staff Performance 15.10.2014 Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for appellant. Shri L.N.Sharma, counsel for respondent. This is revenue's appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, calling in question the tenability of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal,

Indore

Bench

in I.T.A.No.233/Ind/2013 dated 31.10.2013. In the matter of return filed for the assessment of income for the year 2009-10 certain question with regard to depreciation have been considered and the learned Appellate Tribunal after taking note of the judgments rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raipur Pallottine Society [(1989) 180 ITR 579 (MP)] has allowed the exemption. It is stated that the law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid case is subsequently followed in another judgment i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujrati Samaj [(2012) 349 ITR 559] and another Bench of this Court has taken similar view. Based on the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benchs of this Court the learned Tribunal has refused to interfere in the matter. Now based on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2012) 76 DTR (Ker) 377] it is said that in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Kerala High Court the order passed I.T.A.No.79/2014 Commissioner of Income Centre for Research and Tax, Bhopal Industrial Staff Performance by the Tribunal is unsustainable. As the Tribunal has passed the order based on the judgments of Coordinate Bench of this Court, we see no reason to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly finding no substantial question of law made out in this appeal, the same is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) (Sanjay Yadav) Judge Judge M

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →