2017 (3) TMI 1730 - HC - Income Tax

Claim of deduction u/s 80IB(9) - Held that - Revenue, on instruction, states that the impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the Respondent-Assessee s appeal by following a decision of a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the same Respondent-Assessee, allowing a claim of deduction under Section 80IB(9) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. Revenue, on instructions, further states that Revenue has accepted the order of the Tribunal in the earlier Assessment Year on the same issue. Hence, he has been instructed not to press the present Appeal. In the above view, no occasion to examine the question raised for our consideration. Appeal dismissed, as not pressed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding deduction under Section 80IB(9) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2007-08.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard an appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 7th February, 2014, regarding a deduction claim under Section 80IB(9) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The Revenue raised a question of law questioning the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction claimed by the Respondent-Assessee. The Revenue's counsel, Mr. Suresh Kumar, informed the court that the Tribunal had previously allowed the deduction claim for the same Assessee in earlier Assessment Years based on a decision of a Coordinate Bench. As a result, the Revenue had accepted the Tribunal's decision for the earlier years and decided not to press the present appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, indicating that there was no need to examine the question raised for consideration. The court also ordered the refund of court fees as per rules.

This judgment highlights the importance of consistency in tax assessments and the significance of precedent in tax law decisions. It demonstrates how the acceptance of a previous decision by the Revenue can impact the outcome of a current appeal. The case underscores the principle that once a decision has been accepted and not challenged for previous years, it can influence the resolution of similar issues in subsequent assessments. The judgment also emphasizes the efficient use of judicial resources by avoiding unnecessary examination of questions that have already been settled through previous decisions. Overall, the ruling showcases the practical application of legal principles and the impact of past decisions on present tax disputes.