Punjab-Haryana High Court
C I T vs Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd on 5 August, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099459-DB
208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
ITA
ITA-531-2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.08.2024
CIT-II LUDHIANA ...Appellant
Vs.
MAHAVIR SPINNING MILLS LTD. ...Respondent
ITA
ITA-532-2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.08.2024
CIT-II Ludhiana ...Appellant
Vs.
MAHAVIR SPINNING MILLS LTD. ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
JUSTIC SANJAY VASHIST
VASHISTH
Present Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s).
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. The issue raised in the present appeals is no more res-integra as
this Court in ITAT-601
ITAT of 2007, titled 'Commissioner
Commissioner of Income Tax
Tax-I,
I,
Ludhiana vs. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vardhman Complex, Chandigarh
Road, Ludhiana,
Ludhiana examined the similar questions of law as raised by the
revenue in the present appeals
appeal as substantial questions of law and decided the
same against the revenue.
revenue
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099459-DB
ITA-531-2008
2008 (O&M) and connected appeal.
2. The SLP No.31540-2008,
No.31540 preferred against the said judgment
was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.03.2010
22.03.2010.
3. We have noticed the aforesaid position and for brevity quote the
substantial questions of law as raised in the present appeal (ITA-531-2008) as
well as substantial questions of law which were examined by this Court in
ITAT-601-2007
2007 (supra), as under:-
Substantial questions of law raised in ITA-531-2008:-
A. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in
granting exemption u/s 10B when no claim was made by the
assessee in the return of income or the revised return, which is in
violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of
Goetze (India) Ltd. 204 CTR 182 ?
B. Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal was justified in gran
Appellate granting
ting the benefit of
deduction u/s
u 10B in the absence of option exercised by the
assessee in view of provisions of Section 10B(3) as on
01.04.1996 ?
Substantial questions of law already examined by this Court in
ITAT
ITAT-601-2007(supra):-
A. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law
in granting exemption u/s 10B, when no claim was made by the
assessee in the return of income or the revised return, which is in
violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dec
decision
ision in the case of
Goetze (India) Ltd. 204 CTR 182 ?
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099459-DB
ITA-531-2008
2008 (O&M) and connected appeal.
B. Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal was justified in granting the benefit of
deduction u/s 10B on conversation of an existing unit into an
Export Oriented Unit
Unit from a subsequent date, by ignoring the
provisions of sub-Section
sub Section (2) of Section 10B ?
C. Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the bad debt of
Rs.1.00 lac which has not formed part of total income of the
assessee in earlier previous year and was of capital expenditure
in nature ?
4. This Court in ITAT-601-2007
ITAT 2007 has held as under:
under:-
"The contention raised by the revenue is without any merit. The
assessee has claimed exemption under Section 10
10BB for the first
time vide letter dated 19.1.2001. Admittedly, the impugned
exemption was not claimed by the assessee in the original as
well as revised return. This unit came into operation in the
assessment year 1991-92
1991 92 but during financial year 1994
1994-95 got
ot
converted into 100% export oriented unit (EOU) with the
permission of the Department of Industrial Development,
Ministry of Industry, Govt. of India, New Delhi, vide letter
dated 28.10.1994.
28.10.1994. Admittedly, Arihant Spinning Mills Unit
Unit-II
II
(ASM
(ASM-II) came into operation as DTA unit for the first time at
Malerkotla, District Sangrur (Punjab) during the assessment year
1991 92 and was eligible for deduction under Section 80
1991-92 80-II of the
Act and during the
th financial year relevant for the assessment
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099459-DB
ITA-531-2008
2008 (O&M) and connected appeal.
year 1995-96,
1995 the said
id unit was got registered at 100% EOU.
The whole controversy is that the assessee claimed deduction
under Section 80-I
80 I during the assessment proceedings and
claimed exemption under Section 10B of the Act after its
conversation as 100% EOU. In such a situa
situation,
tion, it has to be
analyzed in the light of both the sections i.e. Section 10B and
80 and their requirement.
80-I
After going through the record of the case, the Tribunal has
given a finding of fact that the unit of the assessee was entitled
to the benefit under Section 10B of the Act. Admittedly, the
circular No.1/2005 is clarificatory in nature and the same is also
binding upon the department."
5. In view of above, as the questions framed in present appeals
stand answered, we need not again to examine the aforesaid questions of law
and dismiss the appeals
appeal of the revenue in the same terms.
6. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
((SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
05.08.2024
rajesh
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No
4 of 4
