DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. SRI RANGANATHAR INDUSTRIES P LTD., COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1635/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 September 2015AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court is not a reason to deviate from a binding High Court judgment. The CIT(Appeals) rightly followed the Madras High Court's decision.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals) orders allowing deduction under Section 80-IA for windmills. The Assessing Officer had rejected the claim citing a pending Special Leave Petition against a High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court justifies disregarding a binding High Court judgment for the purpose of granting deductions under Section 80-IA.

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, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 03.09.2015Pronounced: 11.09.2015

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.1635/Mds/2015
ITA No.1636/Mds/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश /O R D E R

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

1.

Both the appeals filed by the Revenue in respect of two different assessees are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals) - I & 3, Coimbatore, dated 29.05.2015 and pertain to assessment year 2012-13. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we heard the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.

2.

We heard Shri Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative and the Ld.counsel and Ld. representative for both the assessees. The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to deduction claimed by the assessees under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of windmills. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessees on the ground that the Department has filed a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (231 CTR 368).

However, the CIT(Appeals) by following the judgment of Madras High Court allowed the claim of the assessees.

3.

Now the only contention of the Department before this Tribunal is 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 CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessees 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 CIT(Appeals).

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 →