2013 (10) TMI 1083 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB and 80IC - Transport subsidy - Jurisdiction to decide the case Held that - Impugned orders have been passed by the Tribunal situated within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this court, this court does have the jurisdiction to try the appeals Moreover, Orders have been passed within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of this court and, hence, this court has the jurisdiction to try the appeals. Since these appeals stand on the same footing as do other appeals, which we have dismissed by the judgment in CITv. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 2013 (7) TMI 175 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT - Appeals dismissed - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the court over appeals based on territorial limits and cause of action

In this judgment by the High Court of Gauhati, the primary issue revolves around the jurisdiction of the court to decide a set of appeals based on the territorial limits and the cause of action. The judges, Ansari J. and Musahary J., discussed the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals, emphasizing that the decision rendered in previous cases disallowing the appeals would also apply to the present set of appeals. The jurisdictional challenge was raised regarding the orders passed by the Assessing Officer in the State of Meghalaya, questioning the court's territorial jurisdiction. However, it was argued that the cause of action in the appeals stemmed from the orders of the learned Tribunal within the court's territorial limits, giving the court jurisdiction to decide the appeals.

The judges delved into the legal principles embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly sections 15 to 20, which dictate the place of suing. They highlighted that an appeal is an extension of a suit, and the legal venue for instituting an appeal is where the cause of action arises. In this case, the cause of action was identified as the impugned orders of the learned Tribunal, situated within the court's territorial jurisdiction, granting the court the authority to try the appeals. The conclusion was based not on the situs of the Tribunal but on the fact that the impugned orders were passed within the local limits of the court's jurisdiction, affirming the court's competence to adjudicate the appeals.

Ultimately, the court held that it indeed had the jurisdiction to decide the appeals, drawing parallels to previous cases that were dismissed. The judgment concluded that the appeals in question must fail based on the reasons discussed, leading to the dismissal of the appeals with no order as to costs. The detailed analysis provided a comprehensive understanding of the court's jurisdictional authority over appeals concerning territorial limits and the cause of action, ensuring a thorough examination of the legal principles involved in the decision.