DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. INDO SHELL CAST PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1376/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 August 2015AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the mere pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court is not a ground to disregard a binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) rightly allowed the deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IA for windmills. The Assessing Officer disallowed it due to a pending SLP against a High Court judgment. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim following the High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the pendency of a Special Leave Petition against a High Court judgment is a valid reason to deny a deduction claimed based on that judgment.

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

For Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Hearing: 05.08.2015Pronounced: 21.08.2015

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)-1, Coimbatore, dated 09.03.2015 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10. The only the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

2.

We heard Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative and Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of two windmills, on the basis of the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 477. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court against the judgment of the Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (supra). However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the judgment of the Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (supra). It is not the case of the Revenue that the operation of the judgment of the Madras High Court is stayed by the Apex Court.

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that mere pendency of Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court against the judgment of the Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (supra) is not a ground for not following the binding judgment of 3 jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee relying on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra). This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority and accordingly, the same is confirmed.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 21st August, 2015 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 →