Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Austin Engineering Co. ... on 26 November, 2014
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri, K.J.Thaker
O/TAXAP/1216/2005 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 1216 of 2005
With
TAX APPEAL NO. 1217 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
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 ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s)
Versus
AUSTIN ENGINEERING CO. LTD.....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV G DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BS SOPARKAR FOR MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the
Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
Page 1 of 5
O/TAXAP/1216/2005 JUDGMENT
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 26/11/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and order rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and therefore, they are decided by this common judgment.
2. These two Tax Appeals u/s.260A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 16.03.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.322/RJT/2001 & 325/RJT/2001 for the A.Y. 1994- 95 and 1997-98 respectively whereby, the appeal of the Revenue for the Assessment Year 1994-95 was dismissed and for the Assessment Year 1997-98 was allowed in part. For the sake of convenience, Tax Appeal No.1216/2005 is taken as the lead matter.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee-firm filed its return of income on 29.11.1994 declaring total income at Rs.29,57,820/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and adjustment of Rs.51,802/- was made on account of previous year Page 2 of 5 O/TAXAP/1216/2005 JUDGMENT expenses. The same addition was retained as the assessee was maintaining accounts on mercantile basis. The business of the assessee-firm was the same as that of the last year, ie. manufacturing bearings of different types. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer granted deduction u/s.80I of the Act to the assessee after reducing the amount of deduction u/s.80HH of the Act, vide order dated 11.09.1996.
4. Against the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 30.04.2001. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2005, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 1994-95 and partly allowed for the A.Y. 1997-98. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred the present appeals.
5. Both these appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law;
"Whether deduction u/s.80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be granted after deducting the benefit / deduction granted u/s.80HH of Page 3 of 5 O/TAXAP/1216/2005 JUDGMENT the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the business income?"
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the record of the case. The issue involved in these appeals is already concluded by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Mandideep Eng. And Pkg. Ind. P. Ltd., [2007] 292 ITR 01 (SC) wherein, it has been held that Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act are independent and therefore, deductions can be claimed by a newly established industrial undertaking both u/s.80HH and 80-I on the gross total income.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue was not in a position to dispute the above proposition of law. Since the issue is already concluded as aforesaid, we are not assigning elaborate reasons while disposing of the present appeals and accordingly, answer the question raised in these appeals in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
8. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.)
Page 4 of 5
O/TAXAP/1216/2005 JUDGMENT
(K.J.THAKER, J)
Pravin/*
Page 5 of 5