Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/116/2000 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 116 of 2000
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Sd/-
=====================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
NO
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
===================================================
DY.
CIT - Appellant(s)
Versus
RATNAMANI
TUBE INDUSTRIES LTD. - Opponent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MR BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR SUDHIR MEHTA, for Opponent(s) :
1,
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date
: 17/06/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
(1) In this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(the Act) the appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated
23.12.1999 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench
‘C’, Ahmedabad in I.T.A. No.4338/Ahd/1994 for Assessment
Year 1991-92.
(2) While admitting the appeal on 20.09.2000, this Court had
formulated the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts
in directing to allow separate reliefs under sec. 80HH and 80I of the
Act?”
(3) Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
respondent has invited the attention of the Court to the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income
Tax Vs. Mandideep Engineering And Packaging. Ind. P.
Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 1 (S.C.),to submit that the
controversy involved in the present case stands concluded in favour
of the assessee by the said decision. It was pointed out that the
Supreme Court has taken note of the fact that the decision of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of J.P. Tobacco Products P.
Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. (1998) 229 ITR 123 wherein it has been held that
both the sections are independent and, therefore, the deductions
could be claimed both under sections 80HH and 80I on the gross total
income, a special leave petition had been filed before the Supreme
Court which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The Supreme
Court further observed that the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in the case of J.P. Tobacco Products P. Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. was
followed by the same High Court in the case of CIT v. Alpine
Solvex P. Ltd. in I.T.A. No.92 of 1999 decided on May 2, 2000 and
that special leave petition against the same was dismissed by the
Supreme Court. The Court further observed that the aforesaid view had
been followed repeatedly by different High Courts against which no
special leave petitions were filed meaning thereby that the
Department had accepted the view taken in the said judgments. The
Court accordingly held that the Department having accepted the view
taken in those judgments cannot be permitted to take a contrary view
in the said case involving the same point and accordingly dismissed
the appeal. One of the judgments referred to was CIT v. Amod
Stamping, (2005) 274 ITR 176 (Guj). In the said decision the
Court had decided the controversy in favour of the assessee by
holding that the profits for the purpose of availing deduction under
section 80-I of the Act, the profits and gains of the assessee’s
business are not required to be reduced by the deduction admissible
under section 80HH of the Act.
(4) Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, is
not able to dispute the aforesaid position. In the circumstances, it
is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.
(5) A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal indicates that
the Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the case of J.P. Tobacco Products P. Ltd.
Vs. C.I.T. which view has not been disturbed by the Supreme Court
as noted hereinabove. In the circumstances, the view adopted by the
Tribunal being in consonance with the above referred decision of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as of this High Court in the case
of CIT Vs. Amod Stamping (supra), the question is answered
accordingly, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the
revenue. The Appellate Tribunal is right in law in directing to allow
separate reliefs under sections 80HH and 80I of the Income Tax Act,
1961. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
[HARSHA DEVANI, J]
Sd/-
[ R.M.CHHAYA, J ]
***
Bhavesh*
Top