9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (8) TMI 252 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80-IA - Manufacture Or Production - HELD THAT - The ld AR points out, that it is settled position of law that wherever two views are possible, the view which favours the assessee has to be followed. We find substance in the contentions of ld AR that in view of later decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. 2004 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT and CIT vs. Mysore Minerals Ltd. 1999 (9) TMI 10 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , the lower authorities were not justified in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act to the assessee based on an earlier decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. 2000 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT . Thus respectfully following the same, we direct the AO to consider the claim of deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Act of the assessee in the aforesaid assessment years. The first appellate order is, therefore, set aside. The ground Nos. 1 to 3 are thus allowed in favour of assessee. The appeals are thus partly allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. 3. Interpretation of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. 4. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The assessees challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, contending that it was bad in law. They argued that the reassessment should be quashed as void ab initio. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that the AO withdrew the deduction claimed under section 80-IA based on a Supreme Court decision in a specific case. However, the Authorized Representative argued that a later Supreme Court decision should prevail, citing a case where a similar activity was considered as manufacturing. The Authorized Representative emphasized that the later decision should be followed as it has binding precedent, even if it does not explicitly overrule the earlier decision. The Authorized Representative also highlighted the principle that when two views are possible, the one favoring the assessee should be adopted, citing relevant case laws. 2. The issue of disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA was central to the appeals. The lower authorities had denied the deduction based on an earlier Supreme Court decision. However, the Appellate Tribunal observed that a later Supreme Court decision clarified that the assessee's activity should be considered as manufacturing, similar to the case of granite blocks being converted into slabs. Relying on the later decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the claim of deduction under section 80-IA for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the first appellate order was set aside, and the grounds in favor of the assessee were allowed. 3. The interpretation of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case was crucial to determining the applicability of the deduction claimed under section 80-IA. The Tribunal found that the later Supreme Court decision clarified the nature of the activity as manufacturing, in line with a previous High Court decision. By following the later Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of the deduction based on the earlier Supreme Court decision was not justified. This analysis underscored the importance of applying the most recent legal interpretations to specific cases. 4. Regarding the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, the Authorized Representative argued that the lower authorities had imposed interest without a specific direction in the assessment order. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Authorized Representative contended that the interest charged was not warranted. However, the Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. The Tribunal noted that the issue of interest under section 234B was consequential and did not require separate adjudication, ultimately partially allowing the appeals. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment addressed multiple complex issues, including the validity of reassessment proceedings, the denial of deduction under section 80-IA, the interpretation of Supreme Court decisions, and the charging of interest under relevant sections of the Income Tax Act. The detailed analysis provided a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by the parties and the Tribunal's reasoning in arriving at its decision.
|
