C I T JODHPUR vs. MALBOROUGH POLYCHEM P LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal's decision, which was upheld by the High Court, was that the assessee was entitled to claim deductions under both Section 80HH and Section 80I. The High Court found that the ITAT's reasoning was correct and sound. The court relied on its own judgment in CIT vs. Chokshi Contacts (P) Ltd. and a similar judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the SLP against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The court rejected the Revenue's argument regarding the production date for Section 80HH, noting that the assessee had started manufacturing quick lime before April 1, 1990. The court also affirmed the ITAT's reliance on the principle of consistency, as the deduction under Section 80HH had been allowed in preceding assessment years without any change in factual or legal position. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue (CIT Jodhpur) appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal concerned Assessment Year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be prior to 2006. The core issue was whether the assessee, Malborough Polychem (P) Ltd., could claim deductions under both Section 80HH and Section 80I for its industrial unit. The ITAT had relied on previous High Court judgments, including CIT vs. Chokshi Contacts (P) Ltd., which supported the assessee's claim. The Revenue attempted to distinguish the present case by arguing that the assessee's factory commenced production after April 1, 1990, thus disqualifying it for Section 80HH deduction. However, it was noted that the assessee manufactured quick lime from August 1, 1989, before the cut-off date. Furthermore, the ITAT had also considered the principle of consistency, as the deduction under Section 80HH had been allowed in earlier assessment years.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HH as well as under Section 80I both in respect of the industrial unit run by it? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments. However, it is implied that the assessee contended for the allowance of deductions under both Section 80HH and Section 80I, supported by the ITAT's reliance on previous judicial pronouncements. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HH because its factory commenced production only after April 1, 1990. The Revenue attempted to distinguish the present case from the precedents relied upon by the ITAT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cited by 9 judgments on BharatTax
See all citing judgments →Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.
- M/S Hassan Hajee & Co., Mangalore v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, MangaloreBangalore · 2022-09-22
- M/S Hassan Hajee & Co., Mangalore v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, MangaloreBangalore · 2022-09-22
- Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore v. M/S Hassan Hajee & Co, MangaloreBangalore · 2022-09-22
- Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore v. M/S Hassan Hajee & Co, MangaloreBangalore · 2022-09-22
- Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore v. M/S Hassan Hajee & Co, MangaloreBangalore · 2022-09-22
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 116 of 2006 C I T JODHPUR V/S MALBOROUGH POLYCHEM (P) LTD Date of Judgment : 25.9.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Johari, for the respondent. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE GUPTA,J.) This appeal of the Revenue has been admitted vide order dated 6.11.2006 by framing the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80Hh as well as under Section 80I both in respect of the industrial unit run by it?” The perusal of the judgment of the learned Tribunal, so far as it relates to this question, shows that the learned Tribunal has decided the appeal by relying upon judgment of this Court in C.I.T. Vs. Chokshi Contacts (P)
2 Ltd., reported in (2001) 166 CTR (Raj.) 383, equivalent to 251 ITR 587, and has also relied upon the judgment to the same effect of Madhya Pradesh High Court in I.T.A.No.92/99, S.L.P. against which has been dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. We have gone through the judgment in Chokshi Contacts' Case, and find that, that judgment does fully cover the controversy involved in the present case against the Revenue as decided by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to make out a distinction, to the effect, that since in the present case, assessee factory came into production only after 1.4.90, deduction under Section 80HH could not be claimed. It would suffice to say, that the learned Commissioner in para 3.2 has clearly found, that the assessee has been manufacturing quick lime w.e.f. 1.8.89 i.e. before 1.4.90, to which effect, the assessee was given certificate by District Industries Department, Jodhpur. The production of hydrated lime was started after 1.4.90, but it was found by the Commissioner, that it does not make any difference with regard to entitlement of deduction under Section 80HH, because the assessee has started production of quick lime before 1.4.90. In the appeal before the Tribunal, this aspect about availability of deduction under Section 80HH has been decided by the learned Tribunal, on the ground,
3 that such deduction was never denied to the assessee in the earlier assessment years, so much so, that in immediately preceding year, being 1996-97, despite the fact that the assessment was made under Section 143(3), the deduction was allowed. In that view of the matter, it was found that the principle of consistency requires, that the view taken by the department in the preceding years should not be disturbed, unless there is a change in the factual and legal position. In our view, the reasonings given by the learned Tribunal are correct, and sound, and the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of Section 80HH, which is being given by the department all through. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant about non- availability of benefit of Section 80HH cannot be accepted. Thus, since the controversy is covered by the judgment of this Court in Chokshi Contacts' case above, against the Revenue, the question as framed is answered accordingly against the Revenue. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI),J. (N.P.GUPTA),J. /tarun/
More judgments on Section 80HH
- ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), RewariITA 7501/DEL/2018[1995-96]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2025AY 1995-96
- DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), RewariITA 4514/DEL/2018[1993-94]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2025AY 1993-94
- DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), RewariITA 6218/DEL/2017[1994-95]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2025AY 1994-95
- M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs DCIT RG. - 3(1), MumbaiITA 7341/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: Disposed12 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998
- DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai vs M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., MumbaiITA 7226/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: Disposed12 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sandhyarani Das vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S.Pitabas Jena,Pokharigaon, Cuttack vs. Supernitendent, Cuttack-Iii, Range, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Sudarshan Behera vs. Superintendent Angul Circle, AngulOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Gayatri Priyadarshini Bisoi vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Cuttack-Ii,Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S Jaleswar Packaging, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 11 Nov 2026