DCIT, CHENNAI vs. BATLIBIO ENEXCO PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 24/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 March 2016AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court does not warrant a different view. The High Court's judgment is binding, and the CIT(A) correctly followed it.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IA for windmills. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim by notionally setting off brought forward losses. The CIT(A) allowed the claim following a jurisdictional High Court order.

What were the issues?

Whether brought forward losses can be set off against profits for determining the eligibility of deduction under Section 80-IA. Whether the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court affects the binding nature of a High Court judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IA,Section 143(3),Section 250

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 CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri. R. Kumar, Advocate

आदेश / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The appeal filed by the Department is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai in ITA

ITA No.24/Mds/2016. :- 2 -:

No. 133/14-15, Dated 29.09.2015 for the assessment year 2011-2012 passed u/s.143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

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

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed return of income electronically for the assessment year 2011-12 on 24.09.2011 disclosing Total income of �1,27,75,265/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed by disallowing �30,20,491/- 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)..

ITA No.24/Mds/2016. :- 3 -:

On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 4. 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 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 5. 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 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 ITA No.24/Mds/2016. :- 4 -: dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the Department in ITA 6. No.24/Mds/2016 is dismissed.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 16th day of March, 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 →