PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S. LEO FASTENERS

PDF · subscribers
TCA/627/2018HC Madras28 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The Court noted that the revenue did not dispute the position that in the assessee's own case, a Division Bench of the High Court had previously decided the substantial question of law against the revenue. This earlier decision was reported in [2017] 84 taxmann.com 6 (Madras). Furthermore, the revenue's appeal against this High Court decision to the Supreme Court was dismissed, as reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 18 (SC). In light of these binding precedents, the High Court answered the substantial question of law against the revenue and dismissed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry (revenue) against an order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 'C' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2008-09 and concerns M/s. Leo Fasteners (assessee). The ITAT's order was challenged before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court had previously decided a similar substantial question of law against the revenue in the assessee's own case, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law by relying upon the case of Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT when the core facts of the said case are different from those of the present matter which involves aggregation of profits/losses of all the eligible business units for quantifying the amount of deduction u/s.80IA of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the ITAT erred in relying on the Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. case because the factual matrix of that case was different from the present matter, particularly concerning the aggregation of profits/losses of eligible business units for calculating the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.627 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.627 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, D.P. Thottam, Muthialpet, Puducherry.

.. Appellant -vs- M/s.Leo Fasteners, Rep. by its Partner, A-27A, Industrial Estate, Thattanchavady, Pondicherry - 605 009. PAN: AABFL 0652J .. Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 31.08.2017 on the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.738/MDS/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Senior Standing Counsel : M/s.K.G.Usharani For Respondent : M/s.J.Sreevidhya ****** 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.627 of 2018 JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, filed by the appellant/revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is directed against the order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.738/MDS/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2.The above appeal was admitted on 04.09.2018 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law by relying upon the case of Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT when the core facts of the said case are different from those of the present matter which involves aggregation of profits/losses of all the eligible business units for quantifying the amount of deduction u/s.80IA of the Income Tax Act?” 3.The revenue does not disputed the position that in the assessee's own case, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in [2017] 84 taxmann.com 6(Madras) decided the Substantial Question of law against the revenue. This decision was appealed by the revenue before the Hon'ble 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.627 of 2018 Supreme Court, which appeal was dismissed in the decision reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 18(SC). 4.In the light of the above, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 28.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order cse 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.627 of 2018

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. cse To The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.No.627 of 2018 28.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 80IA

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →