ITO, CHENNAI vs. ATLAS METAL PROCESSORS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1503/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 October 2015AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an appeal before the High Court does not warrant a contradictory view, especially when the High Court has not stayed the Tribunal's previous order. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was found to be in line with the Tribunal's prior decision.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals)'s order allowing deduction under Section 10B for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The CIT(Appeals) followed a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case for earlier years.

What were the issues?

Whether the pendency of a High Court appeal can be a ground to deviate from a previous ITAT ruling on the same issue. Eligibility for deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 05.10.2015Pronounced: 09.10.2015

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals of the Revenue are directed against the two individual orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

1.

and 2011-12. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we heard the appeals together and disposing of by this common order.

2.

Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is with regard to deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Referring to the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09, the Ld. D.R. submitted that this Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 10B of the Act. In fact, the CIT(Appeals), by following the order of this Tribunal, for assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09, in assessee's own case, directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 10B of the Act as a new unit. The Revenue has already filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 260A of the Act.

3.

We heard Shri M. Karunakaran, the Ld.counsel for the assessee. According to the Ld. counsel, this Tribunal examined the issue and found that the assessee had commenced its export operation in the earlier assessment year and allowed the claim of assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09. The CIT(Appeals), by following the order of this Tribunal, allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, a mere pendency of appeal before the High Court, cannot be a reason to take a contradictory view.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. Admittedly, this Tribunal examined the issue for deduction under Section 10B of the Act, for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, in and 1308/Mds/2013 dated 22.11.2013. This Tribunal found that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act.

The CIT(Appeals) has followed the order of this Tribunal. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that mere pendency of appeal before the High Court cannot be a reason to take a different view. It is not the case of the Revenue that the order of this Tribunal is stayed by the High Court. In those circumstances, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the orders of the CIT(Appeals).

5.

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

Order pronounced on 9th October, 2015 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →