DCIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI vs. COUNCIL FOR LEATHER EXPORTS, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2172/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 April 2018AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the decision of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order granting exemption to the assessee, a Section 25 company, under Section 10(23C)(iv). The Revenue argued that the assessee's activities constituted trade and commerce, disqualifying it from exemption due to the proviso to Section 2(15).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee, a Section 25 company engaged in trade-related services, is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) despite the proviso to Section 2(15).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23C)(iv),Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Adv. :
For Respondent: Adv. :
Hearing: 23.04.2018

: Department by Mr.Jayaganesh, JCIT Assessee by : Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida, Adv. : सुनवाई क, तार"ख/Date of Hearing 23.04.2018 घोषणा क, तार"ख / : 23.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Revenue against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Chennai, in dated 30.06.2017 for the AY 2012-13. 2. Shri Jayaganesh, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee. :- 2 -:

3.

It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the assessee is a Sec.25 Company. It was a submission that the assessee was rendering services in relation to trade and was having gross receipts exceeding Rs.25.00 lakhs.

Consequently, as the activities of the assessee was in the nature of trade and commerce or the business the benefit of Sec.2(15) was denied on account of the proviso to Sec.2(15) and the assessee was denied the exemption u/s.10(23C)(iv) of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) had granted the assessee the benefit of deduction u/s.10(23C)(iv) by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case. It was a submission that the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2010-11 had not become final. It was a prayer that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be reversed and that of the AO restored.

4.

In reply, the Ld.AR submitted that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.7722 of 2018 for the AY 2015-16 reported in 2018-TIOL-739- HC-MAD-IT, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has recognized the fact that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2010-11 in dated 26.06.2015. He vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. :- 3 -:

6.

As it is noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the judicial discipline in following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2010-11, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on April 23, 2018, at Chennai. (एस जयरामन) (जॉज" माथन) (S. JAYARAMAN) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सद!य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद!य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

More judgments on Section 10(23C)(iv)

All 149 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(23C)(iv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →