COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S R.J. CEMENT INDUSTRIES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/157/2017HC GauhatiGAHC01007027201723 March 20171 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal should be dismissed. This decision was based on the submission made by the revenue's counsel and in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 0217 (SC). The Supreme Court had previously held that transport subsidy is eligible for exemption from income tax under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the dismissal of the appeal, finding further adjudication unnecessary given the binding precedent. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, challenging an order that granted the assessee exemption from income tax on transport subsidy. The departmental authorities had previously determined that the assessee was entitled to this exemption under Section 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was heard on admission. The appellant's counsel admitted that the Supreme Court had recently ruled in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 0217 (SC) that transport subsidy is eligible for exemption under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption from income tax on the transport subsidy received, under Section 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. Assessee's contentions: The assessee's counsel conceded that the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 0217 (SC) has held that transport subsidy is eligible for exemption under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC. Therefore, the assessee contended that adjudication of this appeal is unnecessary. Revenue's contentions: The revenue's counsel fairly submitted that the appeal should be dismissed in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (Supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 157/2017 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN (Ajit Singh, C.J.) Ms. Namita Gogoi, learned counsel appears on behalf of 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 →