C I T vs. MAHAVIR SPINNING MILLS LTD.

208 I CIT-I LUDHI

MAHAVIR S

CIT-I Ludhian

MAHAVIR S

CORAM: H

Present M

SANJEEV P 1.

T this Court in Ludhiana vs. Road, Ludhia revenue in the same against t IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA I D IANA

Vs. SPINNING MILLS LTD.

I D na

Vs. SPINNING MILLS LTD. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing ***

RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The issue raised in the present a n ITAT-601 of 2007, titled ‘Co Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. V ana, examined the similar ques e present appeals as substantial q the revenue. NJAB AND HARYANA ARH ITA-531-2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.08.2024 …Appellant …Respondent ITA-532-2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.08.2024 …Appellant …Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH g Counsel for the appellant(s).

) appeals is no more res-integra as ommissioner of Income Tax-I, Vardhman Complex, Chandigarh stions of law as raised by the questions of law and decided the s , h e e RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

ITA-531-2008 2.

T was dismissed 3.

W substantial qu well as substa ITAT-601-20 S A g a v G B A d a 0 S I A i a v G

[2]

8 (O&M) and connected appeal. The SLP No.31540-2008, prefe d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court We have noticed the aforesaid po uestions of law as raised in the pr antial questions of law which w 07 (supra), as under:- Substantial questions of law raise A. Whether the Income Tax App granting exemption u/s 10B wh assessee in the return of income o violation of the Hon’ble Suprem Goetze (India) Ltd. 204 CTR 182 B. Whether on the facts and in Appellate Tribunal was justifie deduction u/s 10B in the absen assessee in view of provision 01.04.1996 ? Substantial questions of law alre ITAT-601-2007(supra):- A. Whether the Income Tax App n granting exemption u/s 10B, w assessee in the return of income o violation of the Hon’ble Suprem Goetze (India) Ltd. 204 CTR 182 erred against the said judgment t vide order dated 22.03.2010. osition and for brevity quote the resent appeal (ITA-531-2008) as were examined by this Court in ed in ITA-531-2008:- pellate Tribunal was justified in hen no claim was made by the or the revised return, which is in me Court decision in the case of 2 ? n law, the Hon’ble Income Tax ed in granting the benefit of nce of option exercised by the ns of Section 10B(3) as on eady examined by this Court in pellate Tribunal has erred in law when no claim was made by the or the revised return, which is in me Court decision in the case of 2 ?

t e s n n e n f x f e n n w e n f RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

ITA-531-2008 B A d E p C A R a i 4.

T “ a t e w a c p M d ( M 1 A

[3]

8 (O&M) and connected appeal. B. Whether on the facts and in Appellate Tribunal was justifie deduction u/s 10B on conversat Export Oriented Unit from a su provisions of sub-Section (2) of S C. Whether on the facts and in Appellate Tribunal was justifie Rs.1.00 lac which has not form assessee in earlier previous year n nature ? This Court in ITAT-601-2007 ha “The contention raised by the rev assessee has claimed exemption ime vide letter dated 19.1.200 exemption was not claimed by well as revised return. This un assessment year 1991-92 but du converted into 100% export o permission of the Departmen Ministry of Industry, Govt. of dated 28.10.1994. Admittedly, A (ASM-II) came into operation a Malerkotla, District Sangrur (Pun 1991-92 and was eligible for ded Act and during the financial ye n law, the Hon’ble Income Tax ed in granting the benefit of tion of an existing unit into an ubsequent date, by ignoring the Section 10B ? n law, the Hon’ble Income Tax d in allowing the bad debt of med part of total income of the r and was of capital expenditure as held as under:- venue is without any merit. The under Section 10B for the first 01. Admittedly, the impugned the assessee in the original as nit came into operation in the uring financial year 1994-95 got oriented unit (EOU) with the nt of Industrial Development, f India, New Delhi, vide letter Arihant Spinning Mills Unit-II s DTA unit for the first time at njab) during the assessment year duction under Section 80-I of the ear relevant for the assessment

x f n e x f e e e t d s e t e , r I t r e t RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

ITA-531-2008 y T u c c a 8 A g t c b 5.

I stand answere and dismiss th 6.

05.08.2024 rajesh

1 2

[4]

8 (O&M) and connected appeal. year 1995-96, the said unit was The whole controversy is that t under Section 80-I during the claimed exemption under Sect conversation as 100% EOU. In analyzed in the light of both th 80-I and their requirement. After going through the record given a finding of fact that the u o the benefit under Section 10 circular No.1/2005 is clarificator binding upon the department.” In view of above, as the quest ed, we need not again to examin he appeals of the revenue in the s All pending misc. application(s)

(SANJ (

s got registered at 100% EOU. the assessee claimed deduction e assessment proceedings and tion 10B of the Act after its n such a situation, it has to be e sections i.e. Section 10B and d of the case, the Tribunal has unit of the assessee was entitled 0B of the Act. Admittedly, the ry in nature and the same is also ions framed in present appeals ne the aforesaid questions of law same terms. also stand disposed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No

. n d s e d s d e o s w

RAJESH KUMAR 2024.08.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.