DY. CIT, V. BLUE BELL POLYMERS PVT.LTD.

TAXAP/536/1999

AI Insights

The case revolves around the simultaneous deduction claims under Section 80HHA and Section 80I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by Blue Bell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. for the Assessment Year 1990-1991. The Assessing Officer initially allowed the deduction under Section 80HHA but required the amount to be reduced from the relief under Section 80I. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently the Tribunal, upheld the assessee's position that both deductions operate independently. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court challenged this interpretation, which was ultimately dismissed based on precedents set in similar cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689739 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amod Stamping, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sidhpur Isabgul Processing Co. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SERVED BY AFFIX N
• Assessee Lawyers: M M BHATT
• Keywords: Deduction; Income Tax; Section 80I; Section 80HHA; Simultaneous deduction
• Section: 80I; 80HHA

Judgement Text

"TAXAP/536/1999 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No.536 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Sd/- =================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 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 ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO =================================================== DY. CIT, - Appellant(s) Versus BLUE BELL POLYMERS PVT.LTD. - Opponent(s) =================================================== Appearance : MRS M.M. BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, SERVED BY AFFIX.(N) for Opponent(s) : 1, =================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Date : 17/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) (1) At the time of admission of appeal following substantial question of law has been formulated by the High Court: TAXAP/536/1999 2/5 JUDGMENT “Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing to allow deduction under section 80HHA and 80I simultaneously?” (2) The Assessment Year is 1990-1991, the relevant accounting period being Financial Year ended on 31.03.1990. The assessee, a Private Limited Company, claimed deduction, both under Section 80HHA and Section 80I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Assessing Officer, after hearing the assessee, came to the conclusion that deduction claimed under Section 80HHA is to be allowed first and while granting relief under Section 80I of the Act the amount granted as deduction under Section 80HHA of the Act is required to be reduced from the relief allowable under Section 80I of the Act. (3) The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the contention of the assessee that both the provisions operate independently and deductions are allowable under both the TAXAP/536/1999 3/5 JUDGMENT provisions without any amount being reduced from the relief available under Section 80I of the Act. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 08.07.1999, has confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. (4) Heard Mrs.M.M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue. Though served, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. (5) The issue raised is no longer res integra and hence, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amod Stamping, [2005] 274 ITR 176 (Guj.), this Court has, while deciding similar controversy in relation to provisions of Section 80I of the Act and Section 80HH of the Act followed earlier decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sidhpur Isabgul Processing Co. Ltd., [2001] 252 ITR 777 (Guj.) TAXAP/536/1999 4/5 JUDGMENT whereunder similar issue relating to relief under Section 80HH and 80J of the Act was decided by the Court. (6) Applying the ratio of both the aforesaid decisions of this Court to the facts of the case it is apparent that in absence of any provision which restricts relief under Section 80I of the Act to the extent the relief is granted under Section 80HHA of the Act, the impugned order of the Tribunal does not merit interference. The Tribunal has not committed any error in granting deductions, both under Section 80HHA and 80I of the Act simultaneously without reducing the relief available under Section 80I of the Act by the amount of deduction granted under Section 80HHA of the Act. (7) Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is dismissed TAXAP/536/1999 5/5 JUDGMENT accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- [D.A. MEHTA, J] Sd/- [H.B.ANTANI, J] *** Bhavesh* "