Madras H.C : The disallowance deduction under s. 80HHC in a case of MAT assessment is to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profit under s. 115JB

High Court Of Madras

CIT vs. Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. & ORS.

Section 80HHC, 115JB

Asst. Year 2002-03

K. Raviraja Pandian & M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 242, 530, 571, 636, 876, 880 & 1097 of 2009

2nd December, 2009

Counsel Appeared :

T. Ravikumar, for the Appellant : J. Balachandar, K. Ravi & N. Muthukumar for Dr. Anitha Sumanth, for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

K. Raviraja Pandian, J. :

These tax case appeals are filed at the instance of the Revenue formulating the following question of law :

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the disallowance deduction under s. 80HHC in a case of MAT assessment is to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profit under s. 115JB of the IT Act, 1961 is valid ?”

2. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the issue has been decided by this Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajanikant Schnelder & Associates (P) Ltd. (2008) 302 ITR 22 (Mad). Subsequently, the Bombay High Court has taken a different view that the said case was not available when the matter was decided by this Court in Rajanikant’ s case (supra). Hence, all these cases require reconsideration by this Court. Rajanikant’s case (supra) has been rendered by this Court on 10th Sept., 2007, whereas the Bombay High Court judgment has been rendered on 7th May, 2009 [The Bombay High Court judgment is CIT vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. (2009) 23 DTR (Bom) 1 : (2009) 223 CTR (Bom) 441—Ed.]. Whatever may be the reasoning given by the Bombay High Court, this Court has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Surana Steels (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1999) 153 CTR (SC) 193 : (1999) 237 ITR 777 (SC) and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 174 CTR (SC) 521 : (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC). The decision of our High Court in 2007 is squarely binding on us. Hence, following the decision of CIT vs. Rajanikant Schnelder & Associates (P) Ltd. (supra), these tax case appeals, at the instance of the Revenue, are dismissed.

[Citation : 321 ITR 448]

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security