DCIT, TIRUPPUR vs. VENNILA CLOTHING COMPANY, TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1700/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 September 2016AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a Madras High Court judgment in favor of the assessee. Following CBDT instructions to accept such judgments, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) concerning the setting off of brought forward losses for computing deductions under Section 80IA. The issue was common across four independent assessees.

What were the issues?

Whether brought forward losses can be set off for computing eligible deduction under Section 80IA, and the maintainability of revenue appeals in light of a favorable High Court judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 30.08.2016Pronounced: 23.09.2016

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No. 1700/Mds/2016
ITA No. 1701/Mds/2016
ITA No. 1702/Mds/2016
ITA No. 1703/Mds/2016

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:

1.

All the four appeals of the revenue relates to four independent assessees and directed against the respective order of CIT(A) -3, Coimbatore dated 21.12.2015. Since common issue arises for consideration in all the appeals, we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.

2.

Shri A.V.Shreekanth, the learned representative for the department submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is with regard to setting of all the brought forward loss for the purpose of computing eligible deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. During the course of hearing, the department representative very fairly submitted that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Shri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P.Ltd. reported in 231 CTR (Mds) 368. The department representative further submitted that the revenue has already filed an appeal before the Apex Court and the same is pending.

3.

On the contrary, Shri N.Vijay Kumar, the learned representative for the assessee submitted that setting off the brought forward loss for the purpose of computing eligible deduction under Section 80IA was decided by the Madras High Court in favour of the assessee in the case of Shri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P.Ltd. cited supra. The CBDT instructed its officers to accept the judgment of the Madras High Court and withdraw all the pending appeals.

Inspite of this instruction, the revenue has filed the present appeals even though the judgment of the Madras High Court is in favour of the assessee.

Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue before this Tribunal is not maintainable.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, in all the four appeals, issue arises for consideration is setting off the brought forward loss for the purpose of computing eligible deduction under Section 80IA. It is not in dispute that the Madras High Court in Shri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P.Ltd. cited supra examined this issue and decided the same in favour of the assessee.

Therefore, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee as rightly submitted by the learned representative for the assessee. The CBDT instructed its officers not to file any appeal wherever the CIT(A) has followed the judgment of the Madras High Court and also instructed its officers to withdraw its appeals wherever it is pending.

5.

In view of this instruction, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the appeals filed by the revenue are not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

6.

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2016 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 80IA

All 1,796 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →