2014 (11) TMI 555 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement for deduction u/s 80M - Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80M without appreciating the fact that assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 80M in view of the provisions contained in Section 115-O(1) and 115-O(5) Held that - There was no justification for an argument of the Revenue that Section 80M having been deleted from the statute book and with effect from 1st April, 2004 the Commissioner and the Tribunal would not have taken any note thereof nor a judgment of this Court in the case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another 2010 (2) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - The Commissioner found himself to be bound by the Judgment and equally the Tribunal - the Assessee received dividend from domestic companies and he had paid dividend on 13th August, 2003 namely before the due date of filing of return of income i.e. 31st October, 2003 - Hence, he satisfied the twin conditions stipulated by section 80M - The deletion of section 80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or its omission by the Finance Act with effect from 1st April, 2004 and the substitution of section 115-O by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1st April, 2003 has not been confused by the Tribunal and particularly in relation to its applicability - the order of the Tribunal is upheld as no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of Section 115-O(1) and 115-O(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Validity of the orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Interpretation of Section 80M:
The appeal challenged concurrent orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the entitlement of the assessee for deduction under Section 80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2003-2004. The Revenue contended that the assessee was not eligible for this deduction due to provisions in Section 115-O(1) and 115-O(5) of the Act. The Revenue's argument was based on the re-assessment completed by the Assessing Officer disallowing the deduction under Section 80M. However, both the Commissioner and the Tribunal, following a previous judgment, found the assessee eligible for the deduction under Section 80M as the assessee had received dividends from domestic companies and paid dividends before the due date of filing the return of income, satisfying the conditions stipulated by Section 80M. The Tribunal and the Commissioner considered the applicability of Section 115-O(1) and 115-O(5) and held that the assessee's compliance with these sections was not required in the given circumstances.

Application of Section 115-O(1) and 115-O(5):
The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the deletion of Section 80M and the introduction of Section 115-O should have influenced the decisions of the Commissioner and the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal and a Division Bench of the Court correctly analyzed the circumstances under which these provisions would operate. The Court held that the judgments of the Commissioner and the Tribunal, based on the previous court ruling, were not perverse. The Court affirmed that the assessee's compliance with Section 115-O was not necessary in this case, as the conditions of Section 80M were met. The Court concluded that the Tribunal and the Commissioner were correct in their interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Validity of Orders by Commissioner and Tribunal:
The Court found no substantial question of law in the appeal, as the issue was already settled by a previous Division Bench judgment. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the controversy was fully covered by the existing legal precedent. The Court upheld the decisions of the Commissioner and the Tribunal, emphasizing that they correctly applied the law and were not required to deviate from the binding judgment of the Court. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the interpretation of Section 80M, the application of Section 115-O(1) and 115-O(5), and the validity of the orders by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Court.