DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PROTECTRON ELECTROMECH P LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2214/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 February 2016AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court is not a reason to disregard a binding High Court judgment. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order which allowed the assessee's deduction claim under Section 80-IA. The CIT(Appeals) relied on a Madras High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court justifies not following a binding High Court judgment for allowing a deduction claim.

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, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 27.01.2016Pronounced: 05.02.2016

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Chennai, dated 26.08.2015, and pertains to assessment year 2010-11. deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee by placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v.

ACIT (2010) 231 CTR 368.

3.

Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) followed the judgment of Madras High Court. However, the Department has already filed an SLP.

Since the appeal is pending before the Apex Court, to keep the matter alive the Revenue has filed appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that mere pendency of SLP cannot be a reason for not following the judgment of Madras High Court. When the CIT(Appeals) has followed the binding judgment of Madras High Court, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with his order.

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is 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 →