, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2030/MDS/2015 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S GRT HOTELS & RESORTS PVT. LTD., 136, USMAN ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : AAACG 3608 B (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SH. A.B. KOLI, JCIT -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. M.P.SENTHIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 17.12.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.01.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 19, CHEN NAI, DATED 27.07.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. NO.2030/MDS/15 2. SH. A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). THE CIT (APPEALS), BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COU RT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. V. ACIT (231 CTR 368) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE REVENUE HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE APEX COURT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SU PRA). SINCE THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE APEX COURT, TO KEEP TH E MATTER ALIVE THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI M.P. SENTHIL KUMAR, THE LD .COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) BY PL ACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASW AMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE L D. COUNSEL, THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON ALL THE AUTHORITIES IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY, THEREFORE, THE REVENUE CANNOT TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. 3 I.T.A. NO.2030/MDS/15 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDE R SECTION 80- IA OF THE ACT BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS H IGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). TH E ONLY OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT AN APPEAL IS PENDI NG BEFORE APEX COURT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). TH IS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT A MERE PENDENCY OF AN A PPEAL BEFORE APEX COURT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COUR T CANNOT BE A REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IS B INDING ON ALL THE AUTHORITIES IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHER RY. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SU PRA). THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 4 I.T.A. NO.2030/MDS/15 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 7 TH JANUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 7 TH JANUARY, 2016. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-19, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL-1, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.