PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S H.M. CEMENTS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/152/2017HC GauhatiGAHC01020747201721 March 20171 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The reasoning was based on the admission made by the appellant (Revenue) that the Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 0217 (SC), had already held that an assessee is entitled to exemption from tax under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act on account of transport subsidy. Consequently, the Tribunal found the adjudication of the present appeal to be unnecessary and ordered its dismissal in view of the Supreme Court's precedent. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

This appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order that granted exemption to the assessee for transport subsidy received. The departmental authorities had previously declared the assessee entitled to exemption under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was heard on admission, with the appellant represented by counsel and no appearance for the respondent (assessee).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption from tax on the transport subsidy amount received under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, admitted that the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 0217 (SC) had held that an assessee is entitled to exemption under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC on account of transport subsidy. Therefore, the revenue contended that adjudication of this appeal was unnecessary and it should be dismissed in light of the Supreme Court's judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IB,Section 80-IC,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 152/2017 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN (Ajit Singh, C.J.) Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel appears on behalf of Ms. N. Hawelia, lear ned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department for the appellant. None for the respondent. Heard on admission. This Appeal relates to the claim of income tax exemption for the transpo rt subsidy amount received by the assessee. The departmental authorities declare d that the assessee is entitled to exemption to tax under Section 80-IB and 80-I C of the Income Tax Act and that is how, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) ha s filed this Appeal, under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act. During the course of hearing, it was fairly admitted on behalf of the ap pellant that the Supreme Court recently in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghal aya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 0217 (SC), has held that the assessee is entitle d to exemption to tax under Section 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act on acc ount of transport subsidy. Therefore adjudication of this Appeal is contended to be unnecessary and the departmental lawyer fairly submits that this Appeal shou ld be dismissed on account of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, in the Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (Supra). In view of the above submission made on behalf of the Income Tax Departm ent and having regard to the ratio in Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (Supra), we order di smissal of the Appeal.

More judgments on Section 80-IB

All 340 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →