ITO, TIRUPPUR vs. M/S. INDOFLEX SCREEN PRINT SUPPLIES, TIRUPPUR
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly followed the binding judgment of the Madras High Court. Furthermore, a CBDT circular instructed authorities not to file further appeals in such cases, making the revenue's appeal unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders allowing deduction under Section 80IA to the assessees. The CIT(A) relied on a Madras High Court judgment, which the revenue argued was under challenge before the Supreme Court.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction under Section 80IA based on a High Court judgment when a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, and whether the revenue's appeal was maintainable in light of a CBDT circular.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT213 citing231 ITR 368 · 2012 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals of the revenue are directed against the respective order of CIT(A) in respect of two independent assessees. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.
No one appeared for the assessee in respect of service of the notice by R.P.A.D. Therefore, we heard the department representative and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit. Shri N.Madhavan, the learned department representative submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IA. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee on the basis of the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Velayuthasamy Spinning Mills (P)
Ltd. reported in 231 ITR 368. According to the learned department representative, the revenue has already filed the special leave petition before the Apex Court. Therefore, the CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and 3. perused the material on record. The claim of 80IA is allowed by CIT(A) on the basis of the judgment of the Madras High Court in Velayuthasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra). The only objection of the department representative is that a special leave petition was filed before the Apex Court against the Madras High Court in Velayuthasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra). The CBDT in the latest circular instructed its officers to accept the judgment of the Madras High Court in Velayuthasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) and not to file any further appeal and also instructed its officers to withdraw its appeals pending at various levels. Inspite of this circular, the department has filed the appeal. Since CBDT Circular is binding on all the authorities below, this appeal should not have been filed before this Tribunal. Even otherwise, the judgment of Madras High Court is binding on both the authorities below, the CIT(A) has rightly followed the judgment of the Madras High Court in Velayuthasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra).
In the result, both the appeals filed by the department stands dismissed.
Order pronounced on 25th November, 2016 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 80IA
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Klsr Infratech Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), HyderabadITA 2323/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026