DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRINIWASA ROADWAYS PVT LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 575/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, noting that a CBDT circular instructed officers not to file appeals against orders following the Madras High Court judgment. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authority's orders.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals) orders allowing deduction under Section 80-IA. The CIT(Appeals) followed a Madras High Court judgment, which the Revenue argued was under appeal before the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing deduction under Section 80-IA by following a High Court judgment, despite the Revenue's pending appeal before the Supreme Court.

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, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Hearing: 17.05.2016Pronounced: 26.05.2016

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.574/Mds/2016
ITA No.575/Mds/2016

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

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals of the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Chennai, in respect of two different assessees. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we heard both the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.

2.

No one appeared for the assessee in even though notice of hearing was issued to the assessee.

3.

Shri Jayaraghavan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the issue arises for consideration is with regard to deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) in both the appeals allowed the claim of the assessees by following the judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (340 ITR 477). According to the Ld. D.R., the Revenue has already filed an appeal before the Apex Court and the same is pending for disposal. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., assessees.

4.

We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee in also. According to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) has followed the binding judgment of jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee by following the judgment of Madras High Court.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. As rightly submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative and the Ld.counsel for the assessee, the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra), has allowed the claim of the assessees under Section 80-IA of the Act. The only claim of the Revenue is that an appeal is pending before the Apex Court against the judgment of Madras High Court. Recently, the CBDT has issued a circular accepting the judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) and instructed all its officers not to file any appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) wherever the 4 & 575/Mds/16 judgment of Madras High Court is followed. The circular of the CBDT is binding on all the officers of the Department and the judgment of Madras High Court is also binding on the officers of the Department and on this Tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authority and accordingly the same are confirmed.

6.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

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 →