PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHILLONG vs. M/S KAKRANIA INNOVATIVE SYSTEM P LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/171/2017HC GauhatiGAHC01026054201723 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 and 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 ruled 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. In light of this binding precedent, the Tribunal found no necessity to adjudicate the matter further and ordered the dismissal of the appeal. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned in the judgment.

What were the facts?

This appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) against an order concerning the claim of income tax exemption for transport subsidy received by the assessee. The departmental authorities had previously held the assessee entitled to exemption under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was filed under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act. During the hearing, the appellant (CIT) conceded that the Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 0217 (SC), had ruled that an assessee is entitled to exemption on transport subsidy under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC. Consequently, the appellant argued that the adjudication of this appeal was unnecessary.

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 Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) 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) has held that the assessee is entitled to exemption from tax under Section 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act on account of transport subsidy. Therefore, the revenue contended that the appeal should be dismissed as unnecessary.

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 171/2017 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 →