COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. RAMESHCHANDRA S. PATEL

TAXAP/665/2006

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income Tax as the appellant and Rameshchandra S. Patel as the respondent, concerning the interpretation of deductions under Sections 80IA and 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were filed against the common judgment and order passed by the ITAT, which allowed the assessee to claim deductions under Section 80IA before applying the deductions under Section 80HHC for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1998-99. The High Court's decision relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mandideep Eng. And Pkg. Ind. P. Ltd., which clarified that these sections are independent and can be applied separately.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 728593 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mandideep Eng. And Pkg. Ind. P. Ltd. [2007] 292 ITR 1 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR; SWATI SOPARKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PAURAMI SHETH
• Keywords: Deduction; Income Tax; Industrial Undertaking; Section 80HHC; Section 80IA
• Section: 80HHC; 80IA

Judgement Text

"O/TAXAP/664/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 664 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 665 of 2006 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus RAMESHCHANDRA S. PATEL....Opponent(s) ====================================== Appearance: MS PAURAMI B SHETH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA Page 1 of 3 O/TAXAP/664/2006 JUDGMENT Date : 03/12/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals and as they arise out of the common impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT with respect to the same assessee but different Assessment Years, both these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’) dated 24/03/2005 in ITA Nos. 224 & 225/Ahd/2005 for the Assessment Years 1996-97 & 1998-99, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals. 3. While admitting the present Tax Appeals the following substantial question of law has been raised/framed; “Whether the appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IA before reducing the deduction under Section 80HHC?” 4. Having heard Ms. Paurami Sheth, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-revenue and Shri S.N. Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opponent-assessee and considering the question framed reproduced hereinabove, it appears that now the aforesaid Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/664/2006 JUDGMENT issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mandideep Eng. And Pkg. Ind. P. Ltd. reported in [2007] 292 ITR 1 (SC) against the revenue. 4.1. The aforesaid is not disputed by Ms. Sheth, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue. 5. In the case of Mandideep Eng. And Pkg. Ind. P. Ltd. (Supra) it is held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that since 80HHC and 80IA of the Income Tax Act are independent and, therefore, deduction can be claimed by a newly established industrial undertaking both under Sections 80HHC and 80IA on the gross total income. Applying the ratio of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mandideep Eng. And Pkg. Ind. P. Ltd. (Supra) the question formulated in the present Tax Appeals are answered against the revenue. 6. Hence, the present Tax Appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. (M.R.SHAH, J.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Siji Page 3 of 3 "