COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PURNIMA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/158/2017HC GauhatiGAHC01020748201723 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 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 ruled in favour of the assessee regarding the entitlement to exemption from tax under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act for transport subsidy. The Tribunal found the adjudication of the present appeal to be unnecessary in light of the Supreme Court's binding precedent. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

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 related to the claim of income tax exemption for transport subsidy received by the assessee. The departmental authorities had previously held that the assessee was 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 Ms. Namita Gogoi and no appearance for the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption from income tax under Section 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act on account of transport subsidy received. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the appellant (CIT), fairly 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 of the Income Tax Act on account of transport subsidy. Therefore, the revenue contended that the adjudication of this appeal was unnecessary and should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 158/2017 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →