9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1066 - HC - Income TaxAdmissibility of deduction u/s 80IC - review application - HELD THAT - The review applications are allowed in terms of M/s Aarham Softronics 2019 (2) TMI 1285 - SUPREME COURT and it is held that as regards questions No.(iii) and (iv) regarding claim of 100% deduction under Section 80IC of the IT Act for the assessment year 2011-2012 2019 (2) TMI 56 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
Issues:
Review of order based on subsequent Supreme Court decision on a question of law regarding deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. Analysis: The judgment dealt with two review applications concerning the admissibility of deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The questions of law regarding substantial expansion and the initial assessment year were decided against the Assessee in a previous order dated 06.09.2018. The Assessee filed a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, citing a subsequent Supreme Court decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Vs. M/s AARHAM Softronics 2019 (412) ITR 623. The Revenue contended that a review cannot be based on a superior court's decision reversing or modifying a question of law. However, the High Court noted that the original judgment was based on a Supreme Court decision in M/s Classic Binding Industries, which was subsequently clarified in M/s AARHAM Softronics by the Supreme Court. The High Court found it in the interest of justice to allow the review application to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The High Court allowed the review applications based on the subsequent Supreme Court decision in M/s AARHAM Softronics, holding that the Assessee is entitled to claim 100% deduction under Section 80IC for the relevant assessment years. The judgment clarified that the questions regarding the deduction under Section 80IC for the assessment years in question are answered in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The remaining part of the original judgment was maintained, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
