SATTVA CFS & LOGISTICS P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner erred in revising the Assessing Officer's order. It emphasized that the jurisdictional High Court's judgment is binding, and the mere pendency of an SLP does not justify ignoring it.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IA for its Container Freight Station. The Principal Commissioner disallowed this deduction, disagreeing with the Assessing Officer's view and citing the pendency of an SLP against a jurisdictional High Court judgment.
What were the issues?
Whether the Principal Commissioner can revise an order based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment when an SLP is pending before the Supreme Court. Whether a Container Freight Station qualifies as infrastructure for Section 80-IA deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd.128 citing263 ITR 255 · 2003 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Chennai, dated
2015 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. No.701/Mds/15
Sh.R. Rajagopalakrishnan, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer allowed deduction
under Section
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 80-IA
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- DCIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Chennai vs Eco Protection Engineers Private Limited…ITA 597/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited, Kolkata vs DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), KolkataITTPA 12/KOL/2026[2022-2023]Status: Heard11 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- State Bank of India, Mumbai vs ACIT-Circle- 2(2)(1), MumbaiITA 3429/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026