DCIT, TIRUPPUR vs. VIKING KNITTERS, TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1646/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 August 2016AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court does not justify deviating from a binding High Court judgment. The CIT(A) correctly followed the High Court's decision.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80-IA for windmills. The CIT(A) followed a jurisdictional High Court judgment. The Revenue argued that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court is a valid ground to disregard a binding High Court judgment for allowing deduction under Section 80-IA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri. N. Vijaykumar, C.A

Heard together (6 matters)

I.T.A. No. 1646/Mds/2016
I.T.A. No. 1647/Mds/2016
I.T.A. No. 1650/Mds/2016
I.T.A. No. 1651/Mds/2016
I.T.A. No. 1652/Mds/2016
I.T.A. No. 1653/Mds/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

to 1653/2016. :- 4 -: आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:

These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against different orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3 Coimbatore, for the above assessment years passed u/s.143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). Since the issue in these appeals is common in nature, hence these appeals are combined, heard together, and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. We consider the facts as narrated in ITA 1648/Mds/2016 of assessment year 2012-13 for adjudication.

The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to 2. deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) in respect of windmills.

There is a delay of 66 days in filing these appeals by the 3.

Revenue. At the time of hearing the ld. Departmental Representative has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay and the ld. Authorised Representative has no serious objections for condonation of delay. After hearing the submissions, we are satisfied with sufficient and reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly and we therefore condone the delay and admit the appeals. to 1653/2016. :- 5 -:

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 20.10.2012 admitting total income of �95,63,717/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed by disallowing �83,94,831/- under section 80IA of the Act by notionally bringing in and setting off the brought forward loss for determining the profits qualifying for deduction u/s.80IA from the initial assessment year being the year relevant to the financial year in which operations relating to the windmill infrastructure commenced. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)..

On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5. observed that the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court order in the case of CIT vs. Velayuthasamy Spinning Mills 231 CTR 368 and 340 ITR 477 and allowed the claim of the assessee. Against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order, the Revenue assailed an appeal before Tribunal.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 6. record. The only contention of the Department before the Tribunal that the Revenue has not accepted the judgment of Madras High Court and an appeal has already been filed along with Special Leave Petition and the same is pending before the Apex Court. This Tribunal is of to 1653/2016. :- 6 -: the considered opinion that mere pendency of Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court cannot be a reason to take a different view.

The judgment of Madras High Court is binding on all the authorities in the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry.

Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee by following the binding judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd (supra).

Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

7.

Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue in 1647, 1649, 1650, 1651, 1652 & 1653/Mds/2016 are dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeals of the Department in ITA Nos.

1646 to 1653/Mds/2016 are dismissed.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 17th day of August, 2016, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 80-IA

All 612 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →