Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(SC) 494
SUPREME COURT
Ashok Bhan, D. K. Jain, JJ.
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Bhopal v. Mandideep Engineering and Packaging India Private Limited
C. A. No. 2196 of 2001
The Supreme Court held that Sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are independent, allowing deductions from gross total income under both sections.
Headnote:The Supreme Court interpreted Sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, examining their independence regarding deductions on gross total income. The Court reviewed the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment, affirming its precedent and finding no merit in the appeal as the Department had accepted the previous rulings. The Court dismissed the civil appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interpretation of sections 80-hh and 80-i independence. (Para 1) |
| 2. precedent from madhya pradesh high court on deductions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. no merit in appeal against established preferences. (Para 5) |
| 4. civil appeal dismissed. (Para 6) |
1. The point involved in the present case is: whether S.80 - HH and 80 - I of the Income Tax Act , 1961 are independent of each other and therefore a new industrial unit can claim deductions under both the sections on the gross total income independently or that deduction under S.80 - I can be taken on the reduced balance after taking into account the benefit taken under S.80 - HH.
2. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in J. P. Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 1998 (229) ITR 123 (MP) took the view that both the sections are independent and, therefore, the deductions could be claimed both under S.80 - HH and 80 - I on the gross total income. Against this judgment a special leave petition was filed in this Court which was dismissed on the ground of delay on 21-7-2000 [see CIT v. J. P. Tobacco Product (P) Ltd., 2000 (245) ITR 71 (St.)].
3. The decision in J. P. Tobacco Products (P) Ltd., 1998 (229) ITR 123 (MP) was followed by the same High Court in CIT v. Alpine Solvex (P) Ltd., ITA No. 92 of 1999, decided on 2-5-2000. The special leave petition against this decision was dismissed by this Court on 12-1-2001 [see CIT v. Alpine Solvex (P) Ltd., 2001 (247) ITR 36 (St.)].
4. This view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been followed repeatedly by different High Courts in a number of cases against which no special leave petitions were filed meaning thereby that the Department has accepted the view taken in these judgments. See CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust , 2001 (248) ITR 29 (Bom), CIT v. Chokshi Contacts (P) Ltd., 2001 (251) ITR 587 (Raj), CIT v. Amod Stamping , 2005 (274) ITR 176 (Guj), CIT v. Mittal Appliances (P) Ltd., 2004 (270) ITR 65 (MP), CIT v. Rochiram & Sons, 2004 (271) ITR 444 (Raj), CIT v. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar , 2005 (276) ITR 664 (MP), CIT v. S.B. Oil Industries (P) Ltd., 2005 (274) ITR 495 (P&H), CIT v. S.K.G. Engg. (P) Ltd., 2005 (119) DLT 673 (DB) and CIT v. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. , 2006 (200) CTR 305 (All).
5. Since the special leave petitions filed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court have been dismissed and the Department has not filed the special leave petitions against the judgments of different High Courts following the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The Department having accepted the view taken in those judgments cannot be permitted to take a contrary view in the present case involving the same point.
6. Accordingly, the civil appeal is dismissed. No costs.
