DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. RANGAMMA STEELS & MALLEABLES, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2309/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 February 2016AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court is not a reason to deviate from a binding High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

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 order, which the Revenue had challenged before the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

Whether a deduction under Section 80-IA can be allowed by following a High Court judgment when an SLP is pending 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, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR

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

1.

The appeals filed by the Revenue are against different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore dated 14.09.2015 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-2013 passed & :- 2 -: 2309/Mds/2015 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 are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together, and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

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. We consider the facts as narrated in for adjudication.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 28.09.2011 disclosing Total income of �17,73,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed by disallowing �1,50,55,920/-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). & :- 3 -: 2309/Mds/2015

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.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the 5. assessee and heard the submissions of ld. Departmental Representative. 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) & :- 4 -: 2309/Mds/2015 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 in is dismissed.

6.

Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue in is also dismissed.

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 7.

Order pronounced on Friday, the 26th day of February 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 →