THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA WIRE PRODUCTS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/210/2017HC GauhatiGAHC01011037201711 May 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's counsel that the Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 0217 (SC), had ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that transport subsidy and other subsidies are eligible for exemption under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found the adjudication of the present appeal to be unnecessary. The ratio decidendi is that where a higher court has authoritatively decided an issue, subsequent appeals on the same issue are to be dismissed following that precedent. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

This appeal concerns the claim of income tax exemption for transport subsidy received by the assessee. The departmental authorities had previously determined that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-II, has filed this appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act against this determination. The appeal was heard on admission, with the appellant represented by learned Standing Counsel and no one appearing for the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether 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 received. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant fairly admitted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 0217 (SC), has 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 and other subsidies. Therefore, the revenue contended that the adjudication of this appeal is 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 260(A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 210/2017 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN (Ajit Singh, CJ) Mr. Sonjay Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department for th e 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, Guwahat i-II has 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 and other subsidies. Therefore adjudication of this Ap peal is contended to be unnecessary and the departmental lawyer fairly submits t hat this Appeal should be dismissed on account of the judgment rendered by the S upreme 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 →