PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. G.V.G. PAPER MILLS PVT

PDF · subscribers
TCA/383/2016HC Madras02 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the Revenue brought to its notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn, in light of the submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Chennai (the Revenue) against the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'B' Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to ITA Nos. 2153, 2154, 2155, and 2156 of 2013, concerning assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The respondent in these appeals is M/s. G.V.G. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. The High Court admitted these Tax Case Appeals on substantial questions of law on 24.06.2016. The appeals challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the applicability of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that a new industrial undertaking, distinct from the old business, came into existence under Section 80IA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite their organic unity. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that Section 80IA(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not applicable to the turbine unit. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in overriding the CIT(A)'s finding that the restrictive provisions under Section 80IA(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were applicable. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in its findings on these issues. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee, M/s. G.V.G. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., nor does it name any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either party in the context of these arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA,Section 80IA(2),Section 80IA(3)(i),Section 80IA(3)(ii),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.Nos.383, 384, 385 and 386 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.08.2022 CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.Nos.383, 384, 385 and 386 of 2016 & CMP.Nos.8581, 8582, 8583 of 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, No.108, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. .. Appellant in all appeals Versus M/s.G.V.G. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., 168/2, Sikkandar Batcha Street, Gandhi Nagar, Udumalpet 642 154

.. Respondent in all appeals Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “B” Bench, dated 18.12.2015 passed in respective ITA.Nos.2153, 2154, 2155, 2156 /Mds/2013. For Appellant in all appeals : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Standing Counsel & Mr. Rajesh

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos.383, 384, 385 and 386 of 2016 For Respondent in all appeals: Mr. S. Sridhar COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the appellant / revenue, questioning the correctness of the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “B” Bench, in respective ITA.Nos.2153, 2154, 2155, 2156 /Mds/2013 in respect of assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11. 2. On 24.06.2016, these Tax Case Appeals were admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law; ' 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that a new industrial undertaking, which is distinct, separate and independent of the old existing business of the assessee, has come into existence within the meaning of sub section (2) of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, overlooking their organic unitedness? 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos.383, 384, 385 and 386 of 2016 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provisions of section 80IA(3)(i) are not applicable to the turbine unit? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in law by deciding the issue by overriding the finding of the CIT(A) that the restrictive provisions under section 80IA(3)(ii) is also applicable to the facts of the assessee's case?”'

3.

When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in these appeals are less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos.383, 384, 385 and 386 of 2016 open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q., J.] 02.08.2022 msr

Index : Yes / No To 1. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-V, Coimbatore. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Coimbatore. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “B” Bench, Chennai. R. MAHADEVAN, J. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos.383, 384, 385 and 386 of 2016 and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr T.C.A.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386 of 2016 & CMP.Nos.8581, 8582, 8583 of 2016 02.08.2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 80IA

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →