DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. PREMIER SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD., COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1908/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 January 2015AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition does not prevent authorities from following a binding High Court judgment. The CIT(A) had rightly allowed the deduction by following the Madras High Court's decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IA for windmills installed in AY 2007-2008, opting for AY 2012-2013 as the first year of deduction. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim due to a pending Special Leave Petition against a High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court is a valid ground to deny a deduction when a High Court judgment in favor of the assessee exists and is binding.

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

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A.No. 1908/Mds/2015
I.T.A.No. 1909/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 CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

These two appeals by Revenue are directed against different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore for the assessment year 2012-2013. 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.

The assessee has installed nine Wind Mills in assessment 3. year 2007-2008. The assessee has opted the initial assessment year as 2012-2013 and it claimed 80IA deduction for this assessment year as first year of deduction for those nine windmills established in assessment year 2007-2008. The deprecation of loss of this wind mill units had already been set off in earlier year assessment years against & :- 3 -: 1909/Mds/2015 the profits generated from other business carried on by the assessee.

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 vs. ACIT 231 CTR 368. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by following the judgment of Madras High Court allowed the claim of the assessees.

4.

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 Commissioner of Income Tax (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 & :- 4 -: 1909/Mds/2015 order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

5.

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

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 6th day of January, 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 →