THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S T and D COKE PRODUCTS,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/211/2017HC GauhatiGAHC01011036201711 May 20171 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal. The reasoning 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 held that assessees are entitled to exemption from tax under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC on account of transport subsidy and other subsidies. Consequently, the departmental lawyer fairly submitted that the appeal should be dismissed as unnecessary. The Tribunal, in view of this submission and having regard to the ratio in the Meghalaya Steels Ltd. case, ordered the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This appeal concerns the claim of income tax exemption for transport subsidy received by the assessee. The departmental authorities had initially granted exemption under Section 80-IB and 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-I, being the appellant, filed this appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act against this decision. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The appeal was heard on admission, with the appellant represented by Mr. Sonjay Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, and no one appearing for the respondent (assessee).

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 the transport subsidy amount received. The appellant (Revenue) contended that the Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 0217 (SC), has held that assessees are entitled to exemption from tax under Sections 80-IB and 80-IC on account of transport subsidy and other subsidies. Therefore, the appellant submitted that the adjudication of this appeal is unnecessary and that the appeal should be dismissed in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The respondent (assessee) did not present any arguments.

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 211/2017 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-I 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →