JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MANDIDEEP ENG. & PKG. IND. (P) LTD.
LAWS(SC)-2006-4-135
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 12,2006

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant
VERSUS
Mandideep Eng. And Pkg. Ind. (P) Ltd. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

DY CIT VS. PROMACT PLASTICS P LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2009-2-211] [REFERRED TO]
DY COMMISSIONER OF I T VS. USHA PRESTRESSED SLEEPER [LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-43] [REFERRED TO]
DY CIT VS. MOTI POLYMERS PVT LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-107] [REFERRED TO]
JOINT CIT VS. MANIBHAI AND BROS [LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
DY CIT VS. RATNAMANI METALS AND TUBES LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-108] [REFERRED TO]
DY CIT VS. RUBAMIN PVT LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-122] [REFERRED TO]
DY CIT VS. ASIAN TUBES PVT LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-124] [REFERRED TO]
DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SUSHMA TEXTILE PVT LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
DY CIT VS. RATNAMANI TUBE INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-128] [REFERRED TO]
DY CIT VS. RASHMI CONDUCTORS P LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-129] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MILLIPORE INDIA P. LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2011-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
NEHA SHARMA VS. JT. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DEVDAS NAIK [LAWS(BOM)-2014-6-133] [REFERRED TO]
SCM CREATIONS VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-367] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. HINDUSTAN PIPE UDYOG LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-211] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PANACHAYIL INDUSTRIES [LAWS(KER)-2014-1-142] [REFERRED TO]
BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(P&H)-2013-11-100] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S. ATUL INTERMEDIATES [LAWS(GJH)-2014-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
ASSTT. CIT VS. MOTI POLYMERS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2014-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VS. RADICO KHAITAN LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-255] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. HARSIDDH SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST [LAWS(GJH)-2014-12-171] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. TONY ELECTRONICS LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-339] [REFERRED TO]
ASSIT. COMMR. OF I.T. BANGALORE VS. MICRO LABS LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-81] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE NAW DURGA BANSAL COLD STORAGE AND ICE FACTORY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-226] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE point involved in the present case is whether ss. 80HH and 80 -I of the IT 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. 80HH.
(2.)THE Madhya Pradesh High Court in J.P. Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 140 CTR (MP) 329 : (1998) 229 ITR 123 (MP) took the view that both the sections are independent and, therefore, the deductions could be claimed both under ss. 80HH and 80 -I on the gross total income. Against this judgment a special leave petition was filed in this Court Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. (supra) was followed by the same High Court in the case of CIT vs. Alpine Solvex (P) Ltd. in IT 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 vs. Nima Specific Family Trust (2001) 165 CTR (Bom) 518 : (2001) 248 ITR 29 (Bom); CIT vs. Chokshi Contacts (P) Ltd. (2001) 166 CTR (Raj) 383 : (2001) 251 ITR 587 (Raj); CIT vs. Amod Stamping (2005) 194 CTR (Guj) 158 : (2005) 274 ITR 176 (Guj); CIT vs. Mittal Appliances & Ors. (2004) 189 CTR (MP) 136 : (2004) 270 ITR 65 (MP); CIT vs. Rochiram & Sons (2004) 191 CTR (Raj) 472 : (2004) 271 ITR 444 (Raj); CIT vs. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar (2005) 276 ITR 664 (MP); CIT vs. S.B. Oil Industries (P) Ltd. (2006) 203 CTR (P&H) 218 : (2005) 274 ITR 495 (P&H); CIT vs. SKG Engineering (P) Ltd. (2005) 197 CTR (Del) 81 : (2005) 119 DLT 673 (Del) and CIT vs. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. (2006) 200 CTR (All) 305.
(3.)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. Accordingly, the civil appeal is dismissed. No costs.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.